Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
May 01, 2001
TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF O' SESSION REGULAR • MINNESOTA LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Mayor's Report ffurzymno 5] Approval of Consent Business — (All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS — (Limited to five minutes per person/subject. Longer presentations must be scheduled through the City Clerk. As this meeting is cablecast, speakers must approach the microphone at the podium for the benefit of viewers and other attendees.) *7] Approval of Minutes: March 20, 2001 *8] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $304,946.51 plus $40,773.5 1 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $345,720.02 91 7 :15 p.m. - Alleged liquor license violations 10] Communications 11] Liaison Reports from Council Members 12] Recess for Economic Development Authority Meeting 13 Re- convene 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: A] Preliminary Plat of Heritage Square by Town & Country Homes, located south of Hwy 169 and west of the end of 17'' Avenue west — Res. No. 5518 B] Shakopee Crossings Planned Unit Development, located west of CSAH 18, south of STH 169, and north of Southbridge Parkway — Res. No. 5515 TENTATIVE AGENDA May 1, 2001 Page —2- 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions continued: C] Stratford Village Planned Unit Development, located south of Southbridge Parkway, west of CSAH 18 and easi of Whitehall Road — Res. No. 5519 *D] Planned Unit Development No_ 17 (PUD) Amendment for Shakopee Valley Marketplace, located south of Hwy 169 and east of Marschall Road — Res. No. 5520 *E] Community Center Use Policy and Non - Resident Fees — Res. No. 5524 F] Skate Park Use Policies and Non - Resident Fees — Res. No. 5525 15] General Business A] Police and Fire B] Parks and Recreation C] Community Development * 1. Final Plat of Pheasant Run 8`" Addition, located north of Thrush Street and West of Quail Drive — Res. No. 5502 *2. Final Plat of ACC 1' Addition, located south of 17 Avenue, west of Betaseed/CR17, and north of Valley View Road extended — Res. No. 5521 *3. Final Plat of Garden Lane, located at Marschall Road and Garden Lane — Res. No. 5522 *4. Set Public Hearing for Vacation of a Portion of an Easement in Lot 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park 1'` Addition — Res. No. 5523 D] Public Works and Engineering I. Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans for CR 83 /CR 16 Improvement Project, 2001 -4 — Res. No. 5526 *2. Purchase of Single Axle Dump Truck for Public Works Department E] Personnel 1. Promotion of Scott Smith from Engineering Technician IV to Project Engineer - memo on table F] General Administration *I. Appointment to Cable Commission and Access Corporation — Res. No. 5501 *2. Request to Use Council Chambers for Shakopee Public Utility Commission Meetings 3. Purchase Agreement for Southbridge Elementary School Site 4. Authorize Use of Credit Cards for the Payment of Recreational Fees 5. Fire Relief Association Pension Benefits -16] Council Concerns 17] Other Business 18] Adjourn to Tuesday, May 15, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY • SHAKOPEE, ME14NESOTA Regular Meeting May 1, 2001 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Consent Business - (All items noted by an 4 are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the President, there will be an opportunity for members of the EDA to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) A.) 4 Approval of Minutes: MBe2.e , co, aco i 4. Financial 5. Small Cities Development Program A.) Appeal by Barb Breuer and David Buckhalton waif,?@ =10 6. Other Business: edaggenda.doc OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF :1% ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTC O' SHAKOPEE, 11 March 6, If Members Present: President Amundson, Sweeney, Link, Brekke Members Absent: Morke Staff Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; Mary Athmann, Fire Chief, and Jerry Poole, Deputy Police Chief. I. Roll Call: President Amundson called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. U. Approval of Agenda: Item # 6.A. was added to the Agenda. This was an appointment of an EDAC Advisory Committee member. Link/Sweeney moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Consent Agenda: Sweeney/Link moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. A. Approval of Minutes of December 5 & 19, 2000 and January 2, 2001 Sweeney/Link moved to approve the December 5 and December 19, 2000 and January 2, 2001 meeting minutes. (Motion carried unanimously under the Consent Agenda). IV. Financial: A. Approval of the Bills Sweeney/Link moved to approve the bills in the amount of $40,058.63 for the period 2/02/2001 to 3/01/2001. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). V. Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 (Seagate TecnoloW): A. Resolution No. 2001 -01, Modifying Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 (Seagate Technology) Mr. Snook, Economic Development Coordinator, stated that the Economic Development Authority (EDA) has been asked to adopt Resolution 2001 -01, Modifying Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 11. Mr. Snook stated the reason for this plan modification is the figures within the categories of spending for tax increments have changed. The total Official Proceedings of the March 6, 2001 Economic Development Authority Page 2 amount has not changed. The EDA has been asked to adopt this Resolution No- 200 1 -01 for modifying the Tax Increment District. Commissioner Brekke wanted it noted for the record that Seagate Technology does have job and wage goals associated with this Tax Increment Funding District and Seagate Technology has indicated that these goals have been meet. Brekke/Link offered Resolution No. 2001 -01, Resolution Modifying Tax Increment Financing Plan For Tax Increment Financing District No. 11, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. B. Resolution No. 2001 -02, Awarding the Sale of and Providing the Form Terms, Covenants and Directions for the Issuancew of Its $981,530 Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2001A Mr. Snook stated the EDA has been asked to adopt Resolution No. 2001 -02, Awarding the Sale of, and Providing the Form, Terms, Covenants, and Directions for the Issuance of Its $981,530 Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note Series 2001A_ This resolution is related to the Seagate Technology project for costs incurred for the acquisition of the MnDOT parcel, site improvements, and utilities. Brekke/Link offered Resolution No. 2001 -02, Awarding the Sale of, and Providing the Form, Terms, Covenants, and Directions for the Issuance of Its $981,530 Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note Series 2001A, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Other Business: Mr. Snook stated that the EDA is asked to nominate and appoint Mr. Joe Helkamp to the Economic Development Advisory Committee. ` Link/Brekke moved to nominate Mr. Joe Helkamp to the Economic Development Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Brekke offered Resolution No. 2001 -03, Appointing Mr. Joe Helkamp to. the Economic Development Advisory Committee, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sweeney stated that the interview committee for the Economic Development Advisory Committee thought Mr. Helkamp was a superior candidate because of all his experience in the business world. Adjournment: Link/Sweeney moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. u ith S. Cox A Secretary Carole Hudlund Recording Secretary *q CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: April 26, 2001 Introduction There were no bills for the EDA for the period 4/02/2001 to 5/01/2001. Action Requested No action requested. Annual Description Budget 02190 EDA- BENEFITS 19 EDA 234,520.00 02190 EDA - BENEFITS 234,520.00 Expenditure Report by Company 4/30/01 Current Month YTD Actual Balance Balance 2,237.05 14,679.25 219,840.75 2,237.05 14,679.25 219,840.75 Exp. Avail. 63 93. 6.3 93. L-- 1 tit ,u I I , TO: Economic Development Authority FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinat SUBJECT: Small Cities Development Program; Barb Breuer and David Buckhalton Appeal of Carver County HRA Subordination Decision MEETING DATE: May 1, 2001 Introduction & Background: Barb Breuer and David Buckhalton, applicants to the Shakopee Small Cities Development Program, are appealing to the City to overturn the Carver County HRA's decision denying the applicant's request for subordination (for the City to move to third lien position and let the new mortgage company be in second position). The applicant is taking out a second mortgage (for cash) in order to pay off debt incurred over recent months. The SCDP program allows subordination if the applicant is refinancing their first mortgage for a lower interest rate only, and not for taking cash out. The applicant signed a disclosure form agreeing to this. Please refer to the enclosed exhibit, which includes 1.) a memo from the Carver County HRA, 2.) section of the disclosure form referencing refinancing /subordination, and 3.) letter from the applicant appealing the HRA's decision. Discussion: The HRA denied Ms. Breuer's and Mr. Buckhalton's appeal based upon the following findings: • The SCDP program allows subordination only in cases where the applicant is refinancing their first mortgage for a lower interest rate (not for taking cash out). • The applicant signed the disclosure form, agreeing to the refinancing /subordination rules. L I 1. Deny Ms. Breuer's and Mr. Buckhalton's appeal based on the Carver County HRA's findings. 2. Grant Ms. Breuer's and Mr. Buckhalton's appeal and provide the reason for the approval. 3. Table the matter and request additional information from staff and Carver County HRA. Recommendation: Option 1. Action Required: Based on Carver County HRA's findings, offer and pass a motion denying Ms. Breuer's and Mr. Buckhalton's appeal to overturn Carver County HRA's decision to deny the applicant's request for subordination. 14F-TA 7114GUM I Eli 1; ■? - - L WEI ty To: Shakopee City Council Members From: Amanda Smoot Date: April 24, 2001 Re: Small Cites Shakopee Project A recipient of the single - family rehabilitation program has applied for a second mortgage and requested a subordination (for the city to move to third lien position and let the new mortgage company be in second lien position). As grant administrator for the program, the HRA denied their request for a subordination. The applicant signed a disclosure form stating that the city will only subordinate if the applicant is refinancing their first mortgage strictly for a lower interest rate and not taking any cash out (please see attached disclosure form). Please find the enclosed letter from the applicant appealing the HRA's decision. Recap on the program The program is a ten -year deferred loan; if the homeowner is no longer in the home for any reason within a period of 10 -years after closing the funds will have to be paid back to the city. The city will then utilize these repaid funds to assist another low to moderate - income household. DTED does allow for negative equity situations and households with second mortgages prior to closing on their Small Cities loan are eligible for the program (the Small Cities loan would be in third lien position). The HRA does inform applicants in these situations that if they do sell their home before they have acquired enough equity they may have to make monthly payments to the city if they do not have enough equity at the time of sale to repay the city in full. 705 Walnut Street • Chaska, MN 55318 • Phone: (952) 448 -7715 • Fax: (952) 448 -6506 MAULING cl 6 r Refinancing- the city will not subordinate if you refinance within the $10 years and take cash out. They will consider subordinating if you are only refinancing to -get--- - R a lower interest rate. If you choose to refinance now, your application will be put on hold until you have closed on your new loan. Bids- You will have 60 days after Dave Schaffer has given you the work write - ups to receive completed bids from contractors or your application will be put on hold. Getting bids is the HOMEOWNER'S responsibility. But, please contact us if you need any assistance. The program requires that you receive 2 bids for every job, in certain circumstances this can be waived. Missing Application Materials- If the HRA requests any additional materials in order to complete your application, please return them to us Wthin 30 days or your application will go on hold. 1 have read and understand the deadlines listed above. I understand that this is a first -come, first- served program and having mypplication put on hold could result -in my application not being considered. r� 7 11 Applicant �- -Cd applican 3 31 Date S _lz ro f I 7 (/1/ �. C(,(/l� l���Gt �• � �/' GZ /1CG� � f r at C�,�/el �Gc.vt U D�- ,..�11.�,. A-7� 1 06 of r k ; //7 �s� r���r dpg ao le 6-1"-- - T e4W 1 1 4 � 11 L - k l r__ 19 o- r lj� - 1 ( / ) ?j /� l LUG ,�/�idG 4/!G� G��� / ���L� S t�J7�� (/ "'!I/�,� ;�__, �G10�� � f /s'1lGt�f�k �. /1� S(,(�riGtylC.e- i i G� � CJi� �du 'r t?�,� lGtr� �G� c G , ` G - 7z Lx a AD OA-r— wad z✓q 7� SGr,L ()k7l i a4d c,111S,e died , � /4�JJ L and ;2 t/", zj 1 n / rti �� -L 4j 7VY 71'1 (.G.fIL- !V- 4'it,('� : �� �/t�f � � 1 ���v� ���%t!/t c f%.�.. !�! CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Economic Development Authority FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinato SUBJECT: Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) - update MEETING DATE: May 1, 2001 Enclosed is Exhibit A, the April 2001 update on the Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) from the Carver County HRA. In addition, enclosed is Exhibit B, an article placed in the Hometown Messenger; this marketing piece also serves as a flyer sent to property owners in the target area. In order to generate more applications from commercial property owners, a 'brochure, Exhibit C, is being mailed to property owners in the commercial target area. In summary, the HRA reports the following SCDP fatiding activity: Amount % of Funds Amount Committed/ Committed/ Funded Allocated Allocated Single Family Residential (goal: 30 units) $369,000 $231,310 63% Rental Residential (goal: 30 units) $121,500 $82,500 68% Commercial $251,250 $11,215 4.5% (goal: 15 units) TOTAL $741,750 $325,025 44% Note: The numbers in parentheses next to the property types listed above indicate the "rehabbed property unit goals" by property type for Shakopee's SCDP program, set by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. I Small Cities Shakopee Rehab Program All three programs are underway. The single - family rehab program is in the final stages (home inspections, obtaining bids and closing) of processing applications. The commercial and rental portion(s) have had several delays; but are now on a smoother track for processing. The second rental loan closed in February. Bill Schwanke is currently working on inspecting two mixed use (commercial/rental) properties, which should be ready to close in the next thirty - sixty days. One commercial applicant has closed on their SCDP commercial loan. Single- Family Project Rehabilitation Recap on the program To be eligible for the program, the applicant's income must be below 80% of the area median income. The homeowner will be eligible for a 50 to 100% grant depending upon their income. The homeowner would need to provide leverage ranging from 0 to 50 %. The HRA has low- interest loans the homeowner could apply for to use as their leverage requirement. However, if they are not eligible for a leverage source due to poor credit, too many debts, no equity, etc., the leverage requirement will be waived and they will receive a 100% Small Cities grant. The grant is a 0% interest, 10 -year deferred loan. If the homeowner stays in the home for 10 years, they will not have to pay the loan back. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 10% per year. For example, if the homeowner moves out 3 years later they would be responsible for paying back to the City 70% of what they borrowed. After their application has been approved, Dave Schaffer, the HRA's Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the home to determine what improvements can be done. Dave will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the homeowner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the payments to the contractor(s) after the work has been inspected by Dave Schaffer. The HRA will then submit a draw request to the City (to submit to DTED) for reimbursement. Single- Family Rehab Summary We have not had much activity as far as new applicants and loan closings since the last update. However, all of the 11 closed applicant's work is under way or completed. People are starting to notice the positive changes going on in their neighborhood. We have sent out 2 additional applications recently because people starting asking their neighbors questions about the improvements they are having done and found out about the program. Furthermore, 3 additional applicants have had troubles securing bids. We have granted these 3 homeowners bid deadline extensions. One of the applicant's home is listed on the Historic Register so she is finding it more difficult to obtain bids from contractors. 6 applicants are no longer eligible for the program due to voluntarily dropping the program, being deemed over - income for the program (we are required to re- verify all income sources every 120 days until closing) or did not submit bids by the extended deadline. City of Shakopee's quarterly insert in the Valley News will feature the Shakopee Small Cities Program. In conjunction with this new effort, Carver County and the City of Shakopee will be trying another mass mailing of local residents. Amount Funded $369,000.00 Amount Committed $151,834.60 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $ 79,475.00 (have been approved) Balance Remaining $137,690.40 Applicants that have closed HRA Loan Number: NO NEW APPLICANTS TO REPORT Household Composition: Loan Amount: Gross Income: Improvements: Market Value of the Property: Rental Rehabilitation Project Recap on the program Any rental owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. 51% of their rental units need to be leased by tenants at or below 80% of Metro Area Median Income, and the rents for all of the units would need to be at or below the Fair Market Rents. If the property is in the targeted area, and both the tenant's income and rent are within the allowable limits a property owner would be eligible for a deferred loan up to $10,000 per unit. A maximum loan amount is currently under advisement with city staff. The owner is required to match these dollars with a 50% match. This is a secured loan, which will be forgiven after seven years. Compliance of rent restriction and tenant characteristics is in force for the full seven years. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 14.28% per year. After their application has been approved, Bill Schwanke, the HRA's Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the rental property to determine what improvements should be incorporated into the scope of work. Bill will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the property owner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the necessary payments to the contractor(s), after Bill Schwanke has inspected the work. The HRA will then submit a draw request to the City (to submit to DTED) for reimbursement Rental Rehab Summary Carver County HRA has had 0 new inquiries regarding the Small Cities Rental Loan Program; 7 rental property owners completed their applications. Two of the original seven applicants has dropped from the program. The remaining 5 active applicants represent 11 rental units. The third rental loan closed on April 27th, 2001. One of our rental applicants is in the process of obtaining an additional bid for exterior improvements. The last rental applicant is waiting for historical clearance. Amount Funded $121,500.00 Amount Committed $ 67,500.00 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $ 15,000.00 (have been pre - approved) Balance Remaining $ 39,000.00 Applicants that have closed Once we have closed on a loan, we will submit a summary of that loan to the City Council; eg. owner, address, # of units, dollars borrowed. Attached is an example of what the summary will entail: HRA Loan Number: 57R -01 -03 Loan Amount. S7,500. 00 Number of Rental Units Monthly Rent: 1 @ $549.00 1 total units, 1 with SCDP Funds Improvements: Complete rehab and upgrade of mechanical systems and improvements to windows, walls and ceilings. Market Value of the Property: $250,000.00 Commercial Rehabilitation Project Recap on the Program Any commercial property owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. Note: this boundary is the small area located in the core downtown area of the bigger Small Cities targeted area. Priority is given to owner occupied structures or where leases are currently in place. Building improvements must be directed toward correcting defects or deficiencies in the property affecting the aesthetics or the property safety, energy consumption, structural/mechanical systems, habitability or handicapped accessibility of the property. Owners are eligible for 50% of the total commercial repair costs, with a maximum loan up to $25,000. The loan is a deferred loan for seven years; which is pro -rated in case of sale. C ommercial Rehab Summary Currently Carver County 13RA has received 0 new inquiries; this is in addition to the original 12 from our initial marketing of the program. Out of those inquiries four have completed their applications. Our Second commercial loan closed on April 27 2001. One of the four is currently working with our rehab specialist to obtain bids and close on their loan. We are waiting on Historical Clearance from the State of Minnesota Historical Society on the fourth applicant. Amount Funded Amount Committed Amount Allocated Balance Remaining $251,250.00 $ 11,215.49 (closed on their loans) $0.00 (have been approved) $240,034.51 Applicants that have closed Once we have closed on a loan, we will submit a summary of that loan to the City Council; eg. owner, address, # of units, dollars borrowed. Attached is an example of what the summary will entail: HRA Loan Number: 57C -01 -02 Loan Amount: $7,250. 00 Gross Income: $ 793 0.9 7 Improvements: Roof Repairs/ Heating Unit Market Value of the Pro perty: $250,000.00 The City of Shakopee received federal funding for the rehabilitation of low / moderate income owner- occupied homes, rental residential units, and commercial buildings located in the downtown area (see map below). If you own property within this area and it needs repair, you may be eligible for this deferred loan program. Funds for this program are limited, and since there is tremendous interest in the program, property owners are encouraged to apply soon while funds are still available. Commercial Property Owners This program offers a deferred loan for 50% of the total repair costs with a maximum deferred loan up to $25,000 per commercial property. The loan is pro -rated with a 7 -year term (this means if you maintain ownership of the property and meet all of the requirements during the 7 -year period, you will NOT have to pay back the loan) You need to be current with your mortgage, property taxes and insurance, and have an ownership interest in the property. Rental Residential Property Owners The rental rehabilitation program offers a deferred loan for 50% of the total repair costs with a maximum deferred loan up to $10,000 per unit. The loan is pro -rated with a 7 -year term (this means if you maintain ownership of the property and meet all of the requirements during the 7 -year period, you will NOT have to pay back the loan) You need to be current with your mortgage, property taxes, and insurance, and have an ownership interest in the property. Home Owners The single - family housing rehabilitation program offers a deferred loan up to $19,000 for home repairs. This loan is in the form of a 0% interest, 10 -year deferred loan (this means if you maintain ownership of the property and meet all of the requirements during the 10 -year period, you will NOT have to pay back the loan) The homeowner match requirements vary from 0% to 50% of the total cost of the improvements, depending on your monthly housing expenses and income. You need to be current with your mortgage, property taxes and insurance, and have an ownership interest in the property. Also, your gross annual income must be less than or equal to the following limits: FAMILY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SIZE ANNUAL $36,750 $42,000 $47,250 $52,500 $56,700 $60,900 $65,100 $69,300 INCOME To apply for this Deferred Loan Program, contact the Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority at (952) 448 -7715. Applications will be taken, and loans will be provided to eligible applicants on a first come, first serve basis. Again, interested property owners should apply soon while funds are still available. LU W CL E o V) ® 4 , W 00 O O U ( _ L O O O m \ .. / •� V -, O U O ' 2 - Q p 0 F- C s U U 6LE99 NW 'eadoxeys ylnoS ;9ai3S sawloH 6Z 6 eadoNeyS }o Al[o N bOA o o an ccl p �_ N CJ 4 3 t. C,3 p rn O p p O y 0 _� is O0 U �. O U •cC N 04 ¢ 4 > .O ° - 1 � � 3.3 okn o 0 bb oC3 0 0 > o o Q w F- w O 1 Pz-gs zalln o 00 0 m 0 t W 'v c F-,-E_ `o U c Z -v orn = m c ° ° 3 o c 32 N m O U co co c � m c .O N M N NE O N O U c a> E ° rnccq) o cod a� -�Lrn s m o p c p _ � ��-,°" y ? N a: U h O ._ N t =O j E- 0 to N Q� z- (n CC C� Sr O Sr a v r� W a' o00 000 U ° U 0 0 0 0 0 o U V] O U 6S�6q 6 X64 O U y O O • p � i.. � Ci C1 �C � O Eli O U 64 U N 3° O OU U O p Z7 U N O t]. U II U II O O y N o 'o o Cl �� p O O °" o a o b ° b O rs3 o ° oon °o^ U w iw •1s ° a E� Q O E- Q O 41 a U Q c O 7L ZS p CS N O w N A C QO • • y ° ° as ° O O to � v� L1 x. cn ,O P. as Cd co W y U ,fl O 0 44: "n In C 0 Cd Q y ' p� C E j ai a" •� ° a Q p„ o > o •� 0 U Ls U w .O 3 V V 0 N U x.flU c,3 cw wWd o w > o N '� o. (1) o al Cd Cd N O "', y �:j 'cd m EL a U cc; p > cn .2 > i. O c W :c d a cn 0 CL .s� W • • • • • • Cd �._ d U C's c U on O U "o U • cz O O >~ U ,, .0 U >~ ,� +•�-' fi NN p U cn o � Y ;3 p .�... N U 4 cn � o o chi 3 ° U e0 -c:t� 4.- U N >~ O o n 3 O o Cd 3 CD O y 0 0 0 y ° ° as ° O O to � v� L1 x. cn ,O P. as Cd co W y U ,fl O 0 44: "n In C 0 Cd Q y ' p� C E j ai a" •� ° a Q p„ o > o •� 0 U Ls U w .O 3 V V 0 N U x.flU c,3 cw wWd o w > o N '� o. (1) o al Cd Cd N O "', y �:j 'cd m EL a U cc; p > cn .2 > i. O c W :c d a cn 0 CL .s� W • • • • • • 0 Cd o cn O i' id O U 4° o ~ 4° p N O O >~ U .0 cn ¢ +� >~ ,� _C: as 0 O 4, + cn to o o cn 3 °' � o o chi 3 ° U e0 -c:t� 4.- o cn y O W O o 4. � 3 CD .O v CD R U - 4° .O N O CAS S. w a o •� -ts �° . 0 a3 o o¢ co 0 o� r. y U n 3 a ~ - 1 o V N J� ° L3 N cd i!; U v c Z ' o r�p1 E x H o 0 UO mo o° w W 0 Uo o ~ O Q .0 >~ ,� LZ •'. �Y -c:t� 4.- cn y O p O 3 ri v �, ii The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council members Link, Morke, Amundson, Sweeney and Mayor Brekke present. Also present: Mark McNeill (7:10), City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director;- Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant; and Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following items were removed from the Agenda: 15.A.1 Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4' Addition; 15.E.3 Approve Hiring of Engineering Technician III; and 15.E.4 Approve the Hiring of Engineering Technician II. Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke reported on the status of the discussions with Jackson Township regarding an orderly annexation agreement under liaison reports. Mayor Brekke also congratulated the Shakopee Boys Basketball Team on their victory in the State Boys Basketball Tournament. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda: 15. B.1 Order Feasibility Report for Adams Street Sidewalk from 3rd to 6"; 15.E. 5 Approve the Hiring of Ice Arena Maintenance Operator; 15.E.6 Approve the Hiring of Temporary Building Inspector. Morke /Sweeney moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Morke /Sweeney moved to approve the meeting minutes for January 16, 2001. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to approve the bills in the amount of $506,139.42 plus $104,879.48 for refunds, returns, and pass through for a total of $611,018.90. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed improvements for CR 83 and CR 16, Project No. 2001 -4. Mr. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, gave a staff report on the reconstruction of CR 83 and the realignment of CR 16 and the public improvements included in this project. Mr. Loney stated this is a very comprehensive feasibility report on what is mainly a transportation improvement project but with aspects such as utilities, trunk sanitary sewer, trunk storm sewer and trunk watermain. After much discussion about the roadways in front of the proposed Valley Green Corporate Center at CR 16 and CR 83, a feasibility report was initiated on September 19, 2000. This feasibility study was Official Proceedings of the March 20, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 2 done after an Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) was completed. It was the City's and the County's outstanding issues regarding CR 16 and CR 83 that precipitated the feasibility report. The County wanted the transportation issues that were raised in the GUAR, particularly by MnDOT addressed. These issues were: the ultimate realignment of CR 16 and 17 r '' Avenue, along with jurisdictional issue between the City and County regarding CR 16 and 17' Avenue; cost determination and any cost participation; timing of the infrastructure between CR 83 and CR 16 and 17' Avenue; and right -of -way acquisition issues. There was a complete analysis of the proposed improvements of CR 16 and CR 83 that included review of the five alternative alignments suggested for CR 16 with 17`'' Avenue, the extension of utilities along with the extension of the trunk sanitary sewer, trunk storm sewer and trunk watermain. Mr. Loney identified many issues associated with the project that the feasibility study addressed. The City's transportation study and the County's transportation study show that the primary movement of traffic would most likely be in an east -west direction when CR 16 was realigned with 17' Avenue. A frontage road concept east of CR 83 was looked at. A cost participation level between the City and County was looked at along with modifying Secretariat Drive intersection and CR 83 with a right- in/right out access if this project moves forward. There was a letter from Heyde Companies, owner of Park Inn and Suites; that letter has been addressed. Mr. Loney stated that a traffic control signal would be installed at 12 Avenue and CR 83. This intersection has meet warrants. The right -of -way acquisition was identified after the City determined what was the best alternative. Shakopee Public Utilities requested that the watermain be included in the feasibility study. Mr. Chuck Rickart, with WSB and traffic consultant for the City of Shakopee, approached the podium and addressed the Council. He briefly discussed the five (5) alternatives for the realignment of CR 16 and 17`'' Avenue. Mr. Rickart did explain the newest alignment proposed that went along with alignment five, but this alignment also was unsatisfactory. Alternative two was the preferred alternative for the realignment (north of the mine). Mr. Rickart explained some of the public improvements. In the Hwy 169 area, some median improvements and turn lanes would be made along with the installation of a new traffic control signal. There will be sanitary sewer and trunk storm sewer improvements. There were five alternatives for a trunk sanitary sewer that were looked at serve the property to the South. The recommended alternative for a sanitary sewer was to install a trunk sanitary sewer line on the west side of CR 83. Three alternatives were looked at for the trunk storm sewer. The recommended alternative for a trunk storm sewer from WSB and Associates is the alternative that goes through the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux property. A second alternative for a trunk storm sewer was designated to be on the west side of the roadway in case a second alternative was needed. The second alternative is quite costly but it could be done. The watermain is located on the west side of CR 83 and the watermain would be extended down to 17`' Avenue. According to Mr. Rickart, the traffic study was quite extensive. Extensive analysis has been done of the roadway systems. Mr. Loney again approached the podium and addressed the assessment costs of the project for the realignment of CR 16 and the reconstruction of CR 83 along with the public improvements. The assessments would be for: curb and gutter, bituminous trail, watermain (Shakopee Public Utilities will pay for the watermain over sizing), storm sewer and sanitary sewer, and an area charge to the developer who is benefiting from the traffic controls. The developer, Valley Green Corporate Official Proceedings of the March 20, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 3 Center, is picking up 92% of the assessments that are assessed. The total project cost is $6.9 million. The breakdown of the approximate cost of the assessments to the City is as follows: storm sewer $292,648; traffic signal $51,563; trail costs $117,562; curb and gutter $ 40,700; trunk sanitary sewer $358,763 and trunk storm sewer $1,393,000. The City's cost of the project is approximately $2,254,336, the approximate County cost is $1,059,658, with Shakopee Public Utilities approximate cost being $72,336 and the assessable cost to be approximately $3,577,079, of which the developer is picking up 92 %. Staff received a petition and waiver of assessment rights that was unsigned and staff did receive a final petition and waiver of assessment rights signed from Valley Green Corporate Center. Cncl. Link and Mr. Loney dialogued on the number of stoplights on CR 16 to go west and the effect the stoplights would have on moving traffic. Mr. Rickart stated that the roads are being designed for the year 2020. Cncl. Link wanted an overpass over CR 83 considered. Mr. Rickart and Mr. Loney explained why an overpass was not considered. Mayor Brekke stated that the alignment of CR 83, at some point, needed to meet with 17 ffi Avenue. There are some tough decisions to make. Mayor Brekke felt a stoplight would be necessary at the intersection of CR 83 and 17 ffi Avenue. Cncl. Amundson questioned the sanitary sewer improvements that are being made with this project. The improvements are for current and future projects. The most cost effective way of doing the sanitary sewer improvements is putting the pipe into the ground at the time the project is being done. Mr. Loney explained the mine reclamation plan. Mr. Rickart explained how the modeling was done to arrive at the decision that the highest percentage of the traffic would be traveling in an east -west direction. Mayor Brekke asked for public testimony. Steve Qualy, 4835 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium and stated he was at the information meeting held for residents in the alignment areas for CR 16 and CR 83 and several concerns were brought up. Mr. Qualy wanted to discuss some of the needs of the property owners. Mr. Qualy did not feel the needs of the residents on CR 16 were adequately addressed. Mr. Qualy wanted some guarantees for a service road along CR 16 for the residents on CR 16. Gary Sorenson, 4915 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium with a couple of questions. Mr. Sorenson had talked with Scott County and he heard from the County that the preferred alternative for the alignment of CR 16 to 17 Avenue was the "preferred' alternative of the alternatives presented. Mr. Sorenson also had a concern regarding the alignment of CR 16 with 17`' Avenue. Mayor Brekke addressed the question of development slowing down and the timeline of 17`'' Avenue to meet up with CR 83. The timeline of 17`'' Avenue to meet up with CR 83 will be determined by when developments go in. The part of 17" Avenue meeting up with CR 83 needs to be an assessed cost. The City can make no guarantee on this point. Official Proceedings of the March 20, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 4 Mayor Brekke asked the County to speak to the preferred alternative alignment of CR. 16 and 17' Avenue. Brian Sorenson, Transportation Engineer for the Scott County Highway Department, approached the podium to address Gary Sorenson's concern. The County's concerns regarding if the preferred alternative of the City of Shakopee is the best overall alignment for CR 16 to meet up with 17 Avenue are: future development and what routes will they use, safety, a jog in the system, and efficiency. The realignment of CR 16 in front of the Deans Lake residents homes on CR 16 needs to be addressed. The frontage road in front of the Deans Lake residents homes on CR 16 is not in the County's five (5) year CIP and the County has not started a feasibility study for this area. The County does agree with the residents on CR 16 in the Deans Lake area that a frontage road with the realignment of CR 16 would be the safest option for the Deans Lake residents on CR 16 in the future. Brian Sorenson stated that based on the traffic generation forecasted for the year 2020 a four lane CR 16 would be warranted. Mr. Sorenson felt the quickest and safest way to move traffic at an intersection was with an overpass but the feasibility of an overpass on CR 16 and CR 83 was an issue. The County is not in the business to build overpasses and overpasses are quite costly. Mr. Loney also said the overpass takes up a huge amount of right -of -way. Mr. Rickart stated the traffic in the Shakopee Crossings Southbridge development was considered in the modeling for traffic counts. WSB did not do modeling for Vierling Drive and CR 17. They however, did do a model for 17 Avenue and CR 17. Jerry Popp, 5055 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium and spoke to traffic safety on CR 16. It is a dangerous place now and the Valley Green Corporate Center project will make CR 16 much worse. William and Lisa Sorenson, 4915 Eagle Creek Boulevard, along with Andrew, David and Kevin Qualy, 4835 Eagle Creek Boulevard; Haley, Melissa, and Daniel Gerlach, 4855 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium and addressed the Council. Andrew Qualy read a statement composed by the young citizens of the Deans Lake CR 16 area, stating how the realignment of CR 16 would affect the residents. Kathy Gerlach, 4855 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium and stated three different options for a storm water plan and an additional five options for a sanitary sewer plan were developed. Linda Layman, hydro geologist, reviewed the report regarding the proposed improvements for CR 83 and CR 16 with Ms. Gerlach. Ms. Layman made ten (10) comments mainly regarding the water issues. Copies were given to the Councilmembers. Ms. Gerlach was concerned the Council did not have enough information yet. She stated the City did initiate the realignment of CR 16 and she felt a frontage road for the Deans Lake CR 16 area should be included in the feasibility report. This frontage road should either be a City or County project because of the safety involved. This frontage road should have a very definite plan and timeline along with monies committed for the purpose of a frontage road and the pursuit of the necessary right -of -way. Ms. Gerlach would like the feasibility report extended east to include the area east of CR 83 along CR 16 and for the frontage road project to run simultaneously with the proposed improvements for CR 83 and CR 16, Project No. 2001 -4. Official Proceedings of the March 20, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 5 Phil Carlson, Senior Planner for Dahlgren, Shardlow and Ubin, Planning Consultants, approached the podium addressed the Council on the outstanding characteristics of the Valley Green Corporate Center site. These outstanding characteristics are: location, access, visibility, amenities and the number of acres in one piece. CR 16 in the current alignment only allows for one access into this 300 -acre parcel. There is not enough space between the current access of CR 83 and CR 16 to allow another access between it and Hwy 169. The realignment of CR 16 is an important consideration to the Valley Green Corporate Center, so a second access is available. The vast majority of the traffic at this site will be going north and south of the by -pass. This traffic will be phased in gradually. The amenities would include a park and trail dedication to the City as well as internal park trails. The trails would be developed for all to use. The Valley Green Corporate Center does not drain into Deans Lake. Drainage will be handled in a responsible way. Ryan Companies is working with Valley Green Business Park to purchase the Valley Green Corporate Center site because of the outstanding characteristics described. Ryan Companies attracts high quality businesses. Mark Sims, Vice - President of Development of Ryan Companies, approached the podium and addressed the Council on the reali of CR 83 and CR 16. Mr. Sims stated that without the realignment of CR 83 and CR 16 it would be very hard for the Ryan Companies to achieve their vision at the Valley Green Corporate Center site. Mr. Sims was looking for the Council's support of this realignment of CR 83 and CR 16 so the Ryan Companies could move forward. Ryan Companies had their first open house with the residents recently. Aimie Gourlay, Independent Facilitator and Executive Director of Mediation Center at Hamline University, approached the podium. She stated that she did a significant amount of land use planning. Ryan Companies asked her to come to the open house Ryan Companies held to start a communication process with the community so the community knows what is going on. There were many, many concerns asked. Environmental concerns came up more than concerns on CR 16. Ryan Companies is dedicated to seeing that communication is open between Ryan Companies and the community as long as the Ryan Companies project continues forward. There is much dialogue that needs to take place. Mayor Brekke stated it was clearly the City's and the County's responsibility to build a roadway that was safe and moves traffic in a safe manner. The realignment of CR 16 is the number one issue tonight and is on everyone's mind. This issue must not and should not be minim ized. This is a City and County project and therefore, it is the responsibility of the City and County to have the dialogue with the citizens. Mayor Brekke felt the developer's responsibility was in the way of linking up with and working with the plan that the City and County come up with. According to Cncl. Sweeney, the basic concern is the realignment of CR 16 east of CR 83. There are two issues: 1) the availability of the land from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and, 2) where the County has the alignment of CR 16 and the frontage road in their CIP. This frontage road is not in the County's CIP now, but, the County is now setting monies aside for emergencies. Cncl. Sweeney would like to see some of the concerns addressed for the residents east of CR 83. How do we get the County to buy into this idea at this time? This is a County road and the County needs to make the decision. Cncl. Sweeney thought perhaps the City of Shakopee could help fund the feasibility study. Official Proceedin of the March 20, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 6 Art Bannerman, County Commissioner, approached the podium and stated CR 16 is the issue he hears the most about. It is not the realignment of CR 16, but CR 16 itself. Mr. Bannerman met with Brad Larsen and Brian Sorenson, with the County Highway Department, and Mr. Bannerman was told that the process has been started to do a traffic study of County Road 16. However, this traffic study is in the preliminary stages, the Board has not given their approval yet. Mr. Bannerman thought now was the time to get the study done and also to get the right -of -way resolved. Phil Carlson approached the podium and stated this was a great opportunity for the City, County and Mdewakanton Sioux to cooperate. Mr. Carlson offered Ryan Companies cooperation if needed. Mr. Carlson asked that the petition for the improvements to CR 83 and CR 16 be accepted and the feasibility for a roadway project be approved. Mr. Carlson felt this was a great opportunity for Shakopee and the area. Mr. Bill Rudnicki, representing the tribal council and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, approached the podium and stated the tribal council and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community are opposed to the reconstruction of CSAH 83 and the realignment of CSAH 16, with the public improvements, Project No. 2001 -4. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community opposes this project because the project does not show the whole scope of the project. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community opposes their granting the right -of -way needed for the current proposed project (which is approximately 1/3 acre) because not all of the right -of -way requirements are revealed, discussed or analyzed, according to Mr. Rudnicki. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community feels the only benefit of this project is to the developer. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community opposes the assessment for the Trunk Water Main. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community has its own water system that services all tribal lands. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community does not need and will not use a water system from the City of Shakopee. Mr. Rudnicki felt the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community's water system is superior to the City of Shakopee's. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community opposes the watermain extension as part of the CSAH 83 and CSAH 16 project because this project unilaterally takes and uses land without consultation. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community opposes the Storm Water Plan. Mr. Rudnicki stated the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community manages its storm water system on its own lands. Mr. Rudnicki stated that the current proposed plan was developed without Community input, without regard to the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community planned uses for the land (which have not been determined) and without regard to integrating any regional storm water management system. Mr. Rudnicki did not feel the City had the moral, ethical, and legal right to proceed with this project in the manner being proposed. Evan Steine, 5310 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium and stated without the land to the South (to accommodate a service road) the probable outcome would be that his home and his neighbor's homes would go away. The residents on Eagle Creek Boulevard are asking to be included in the City's plans for CR 16. Mr. Stein thanked the Mayor for acknowledging that the responsibility for this project was the City's and the County's. The responsibility of the project did not rest on the shoulders of Valley Green Corporate Center. The re- alignment of CR 16 and the reconstruction of CR 83 is the City's decision to make. Official Proceedings of the March 20, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 7 A recess was taken at 9:04 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:14 p.m. Gary Anderson, 5370 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium. Mr. Anderson stated the residents know there will some kind of road changes at CR 16 and CR 83. He also expressed concern regarding other intersecti6ns. Mr. Anderson strongly urged the Council not to approve this plan at this time. The Council did not have the whole picture in front of them. Dave Czaja, 5262 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium with a couple of comments. Mr. Czaja felt there was a significant amount of traffic going north -south on CR 83. Mr. Czaja questioned the accuracy of the numbers used in the modeling for traffic analysis. Mr. Czaja questioned the response time for emergency vehicles. Mayor Brekke declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Brekke thanked the audience for the constructive comments and the way in which they conducted themselves with this issue in this public hearing. Cncl. Sweeney felt development was going to happen whether CR 16 was realigned or not. The current plan plans out to the year 2020, which is better than previous planning that did not plan out that far. Cncl. Sweeney felt if the City did not go ahead with this current plan, the roadways would happen in little segments with a bottleneck in the configuration that would be irresolvable. Cncl. Sweeney felt the City needed to address the feasibility of a frontage road, realignment of CR 16. This feasibility study of a frontage road needs to be done early in the process. This will not be easy for the City or the County; if the City does not try it will not happen. Cncl. Morke felt the extension of the feasibility study to the east of CR 83 was extremely important. The County needs to be involved with this feasibility study. These are County Roads. Cncl. Amundson also felt the frontage road for the residents on CR 16 was very important. Mayor Brekke approached the podium so he would have access to the graphics. Mayor Brekke felt the idea of including the easterly portion of CR 16 in the feasibility study made a lot of sense. The right- of-way needed will be identified in the feasibility study and then the City can work with the County and the Mdewakanton Sioux Community to make the right -of -way acquisition. This could be an additional feasibility study or it could be added to the current feasibility study. Mayor Brekke would like the feasibility study done east of CR 83 to be added to the current feasibility study so an additional item could be clarified. The additional idea was to identify a collector street on option 2 and option 5 giving the residents options as to where they want to go and giving a second access to Valley Green Corporate Center. Mr. Loney addressed Mayor Brekke's collector street idea. Cncl. Link wanted the idea of an overpass investigated. Brent Weiss, WSB and Associates, approached the podium and addressed the road alignment issues. Mr. Weiss recommended that two amendments be added to the current feasibility report. One Official Proceedings of the March 20, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 8 amendment for 2a and 5a road alignment suggestions from Mayor Brekke and the amendment should be for the possible frontage road on CR 16 for the residents on Eagle Creek Boulevard. Cncl. Sweeney stated because of the amount of right -of -way needed for an overpass, he could not support the overpass idea. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, approached the podium and stated the "new" collector street concept advanced by Mayor Brekke is an interesting concept. The design proposed by Mayor Brekke was looked at previously and that design doesn't work from an engineering standpoint. Mr. Albinson felt more time would be lost if additional designs were looked at. The traffic plan before the Council is what the Comprehensive Transportation Plan told Valley Green Business Park the City wanted. Mayor Brekke wanted it noted for the record that it was the City Council that approved the grading permit for Valley Green Business Park. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, suggested that the petition with a resolution attached be acted on first by the City Council and then the City Council can make the decision regarding the public improvement project itself. Sweeney /Amundson offered Resolution No. 5499, A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition For Improvements To County State Aid Highway 83, From 12 Avenue To Approximately 1870 Feet South Of The Existing Intersection Of County State Aid Highway 16, And For County State Aid Highway 16, From Approximately 850 Feet West Of County State Aid Highway 83 To Approximately 1500 Feet Of County State Aid Highway 83, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4 -1 with Cncl. Link dissenting. Sweeney/Morke moved to continue the public improvements and realignment of CSAH 16 to the April 3, 2001 City Council meeting and direct staff to come back with an analysis of options 2a and 5a for the additional collector street possibilities. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Amundson directed staff to undertake, with the County's cooperation, a feasibility study of the right -of -way needed and the preliminary cost estimates of the realignment of CSAH 16 that creates a frontage road on the present alignment of CSAH 16 from CSAH 83 to McKenna Road, or further if the County directs, with the City funding the feasibility study as far as McKenna Road. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Loney stated that staff would not be able to accommodate the above motions. The consultant, WSB, would need to do it and Mr. Loney felt this was above WSB's current obligations. Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the expenditure of funds as necessary to accomplish the above motions. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Michael Leek reported on the preliminary plat of Garden Lane Addition. From the time this preliminary plat was first heard back in February, until now, Mr. Daniel Brewer has made some revisions to the plat for Garden Lane Addition. Mr. Leek identified a couple of the revisions. Mr. Official Proceedings of the March 20, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 9 Brewer has proposed the acquisition of more property from the current owner of the Garden Lane property thus reducing the density of Mr. Brewer's project. The density for the whole site would remain about the same. Mr. Brewer has designated some very specific play areas and has also added 12 additional parking spaces. Mayor Brekke asked if the changes on the plat were because of the discussion at a previous Council meeting. Mr. Leek stated yes, the revisions were due to the Council's comments. Mr. Daniel Brewer, applicant, approached the podium and addressed the Council. Mr. Brewer stated he heard the concerns of the Council and was able to purchase more land for adequate playgrounds and parking. Mr. Brewer asked if the 12 additional parking spaces could be left identified as parking spaces but left unpaved at this time? If needed, then the parking spaces can be paved, but right now, he was trying to reduce the impervious surface. The Council agreed that the 12 additional parking spaces could be left unpaved at this time. Mr. Leek and Mr. Thomson will arrange this request. Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5489, A Resolution Of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving The Preliminary Plat of Garden Lane Addition, with the addition that the 12 additional parking spaces do not need to be paved until the need arises, and moved its adoption. Cncl. Amundson wondered if this additional parking would just cause parking problems for the original Garden Lane Apartment residents. Mr. Leek addressed the parking issue along with Mr. Brewer. Mr. Brewer stated that the "new" parking space needs to be reorganized. There was more discussion on the parking. Motion carried unanimously. Morke /Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5497, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving The Preliminary And Final Plat Of Bluff Avenue Urban Village Development, ` and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5500, A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of a Report On Sidewalk Extension Along Adams Street, From 6 Avenue to 3 Avenue, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to authorize the purchase of the SCBA units with the 60- minute air packs and alert system from Ed M. Feld Equipment Company, for a cost of $18,850. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to have Bolten and Menk conduct a topographic and boundary survey of Huber Park at an amount not to exceed $7,520 with the funding to come from the Park Reserve Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to approve the installation of an irrigation system on Muenchow Fields and award the work of installing the sprinkling system to Metro Sprinkler Systems of Shakopee, MN at an amount not to exceed $22,611.44 with the funding coming from the Park Reserve Fund (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the March 20, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 10 Morke /Sweeney moved to terminate Ryan Halverson's probationary status for the Engineering Technician II position. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to terminate Keith Raines' probationary status for the Maintenance Worker position. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to authorize the appointment of Joshua Barrick as Ice Arena Maintenance Operator, contingent upon successful completion of the pre - employment physical and background check, at a starting salary of $30,560 (Grade D, Step 1) of the 2001 Pay Plan. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to approve the appointment of Richard Sames to the position of Temporary Building Inspector at $19.11 per hour (Step 1 of the pay grade) for a six (6) month period commencing April 2, 2001. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to revoke the On -sale, Sunday On -Sale and Off -sale intoxicating liquor licenses of the Rock Spring Restaurant, Inc. 1561 East 1" Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to authorize the reinstatement of the intoxicating liquor licenses of the Rock Spring Restaurant, Inc. upon receipt of a clearance certificate from the Commissioner of Revenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, reported on Mr. Allan Hastings call to City Hall regarding the refuse collection. Mr. Hastings called City Hall and said he did not want his refuse picked up because he had no need for the collection and asked for an exemption. Mr. McNeill explained that City ordinance does require single - family residences, within the urban service area, to be serviced under the Sanitation Service contract that the City has. Mr. McNeill informed Mr. Allen Hastings it was the City Council's responsibility to give this exemption if that was the Council's decision. Mr. Hastings, 1295 Miller Street, approached the podium and addressed the refuse collection exemption that he requested. Mr. Hastings stated that he did not need and he would not use the refuse collection organized by the City. Mr. Hastings wanted to know why he should be paying for this service when he was not receiving it. Mayor Brekke stated if this exemption was allowed then a policy for refuse exemptions would be set and the closed garbage system for the City of Shakopee would no longer be effective. Mayor Brekke addressed the City's problem with hiring engineers. Mayor Brekke wanted this addressed now rather than waiting for the salary study to be completed. Cncl. Sweeney respectfully disagreed with Mayor Brekke on this issue. Mr. Loney said he would prioritize the projects that the Engineering Department had; the out for the Engineering Department was the use of consultants. Mayor Brekke, Mr. Leek and Mr. McNeill spoke with Jackson Township officials regarding an orderly annexation agreement. Mayor Brekke wanted to give some feedback from the meeting with the Jackson Township officials. It appeared that Jackson Township and the City of Shakopee agreed Official Proceedings of the March 20, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 11 that the area on the County's Comprehensive plan, south and east of Hwy 169 should be just urban reserve when the two entities met in January to discuss the orderly annexation. Now it appears Jackson Township may not agree with the urban reserve designation. Mr. Leek explained that Jackson Township felt the land use designation south and east of Hwy 169 to CR 15 should be commercial reserve. Mr. Leek stated he will put together some alternatives that address the concerns of the City and the Township and the timelines to negotiate those concerns, and then send this information back to the Township and the County as well. It is important to get consensus, and right now there is not consensus. Cncl. Sweeney wanted the area along Hwy 169 and CR 15 to be designated urban reserve. If it was to remain commercial, then perhaps MUSA should not be extended to that area. Cncl. Link would like a joint meeting with the Jackson Township officials to discuss the land use along Hwy 169. Mr. Leek responded that he felt the land use needed to be dealt with up front. The City is not interested in a commercial reserve designation south of Hwy 169. Sweeney/Morke moved that there be communication with the County and Jackson Township officials that the area south of Hwy 169 should be designated as urban reserve and the City of Shakopee is not interested in extending sewer into that area south of Hwy 169 to CR 15 for commercial development purposes. Motion carried 4 -1 with Cncl. Link dissenting. Sweeney/Link moved to adjourn to Tuesday March 27, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. J dith S. Cox ity Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director RE: City Bill List DATE: April 26, 2001 // 00 a.` 0VSGr[V 1 - Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 2001 based on data entered as of 4/26/01. Attached is a regular council bill list for invoices processed to date for council approval. Also included in the checklist are various refunds, returns, pass through, etc. totaling $40,773.51. The actual net expense amount is $304,946.51. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $345,720.02. n M r CA N O � m N CA v d W Q W E a 0 O 2 o r U a o LL o O } m v F- 7 U � O W O Cn U O J ❑ U- 0 Q' m U m m s C R C O 3 U CO W O O N N M N N n O n n O to M N N r O CO n (p O N 1� O 'C n N V N O to O W r Cv O (D (D N 0) O N 0) Co CD O M N n n Co ( D O O M - Cn Co (D N N N O <f O < O to M { cN- O N N N c O Cn O O a Co lA V Co m n n V O N W O n CA n n M Cn to � co co co n vi n O Cn M (D tt O M N n M 0) Co Co (n0 to CD 7 N M N _ O n O O C O M O N CL) n Cl) CA O 0) M (A O v M c, M O r O N N LO O 7 O N O r Co r O V Cn O O O M to Cv Cn • o 0 n m N CC) 0 v o� (O n M n CA n N n W n 0 n O n N M O In n M V ( Z Co N N n N n (D O CA m N O O CO 0 ) C) CA V CO vi O O M Cn ri [V N cD "t O N 0A O CD N O CCD N n to n IA p_ x o N N N r 10 N N (O N O N cD N O N M N N r .� O CV W m W F Z W c o) Co O O O O n n ^ t M O O O M n N n O p O F- c O V V N V Cn M a) n O of n M N M U W n O O O o cD O V N V V N O CD N C N n N CD (o n co Cn O N O (A In t n N N V O to N r L6 cc M cn- �' �' n (p M tIJ n r In M to m m 2i o Z Z `- Z Q �y,� CO m U m m s C R C O 3 U CO W O O N N M N N n O n n O to M N N r O CO n (p O N 1� O 'C n N V N O to O W r Cv O (D (D N 0) O N 0) Co CD O M N n n Co ( D O O M - Cn Co (D N N N O <f O < O to M { cN- O N N N c O Cn O O a Co lA V Co m n n V O N W O n CA n n M Cn to � co co co n vi n O Cn M (D tt O M N n M 0) Co Co (n0 to CD 7 N M N _ O n O O C O M O N CL) n Cl) CA O 0) M (A O v M c, M O r O N N LO O 7 C 3 ¢ m CD rn co Lo CD C E U C) 0 C3. o ID o � M m ,p m W M M W o o > o n n O O O X c W O)l co 'C V N C O N O m Cn In m m O O Cn U� ❑ c o 0 } m r r C � m d Q U m m C - 0 C 3 ¢ m C V co co � N N 0l0 0 0 m 0 M M 0 1 CD O 00 Cl 0 0 0 0 ° o ° o o o 0 00 o 0 f- 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 6 o o 0 0 M CC D) a0 o Cn co M V ( Z Co N N n N n (D O CA m N O O CO 0 ) C) CA V CO vi O O M Cn ri [V m C CA C V N C C j N C7 N n 'o CCD m c n - CD C 3 ¢ m CD rn co Lo CD C E U C) 0 C3. o ID o � M m ,p m W M M W o o > o n n O O O X c W O)l co 'C V N C O N O m Cn In m m O O Cn U� ❑ c o 0 } m r r C � m d Q U m m C - 0 C 3 ¢ m C V co co � N N 0l0 0 0 m 0 M M 0 1 CD T d E U a 0 0 a o m o � M m W rn rn Co Cn N N W n n O O Co co m O O C N N m 0) m m m M (` CD rn ❑ c o 0 F m M M } o o r c am -. C R V O � � � m N Q U m m c C z ¢ m c 0 oa V ❑ O o o O O O O O M Cl) N N U Z. Q E ❑ C7 z O U- Z W O Z H O ¢ LLJ L Y w Y o O n `n o Cn Z O (� J w m m W F Z W c � O W T F z U a z w n d O ❑ J z U F- J w Z w (5 ¢ U ❑ a) W W W W ❑ W Q Z ❑ t z Z Q O Z- �❑ O m Z Z IW-• W J }❑ af W U 2i o Z Z O C7 r Z Q �y,� _U W z W 2 IL Y J z ¢ t F _ z O O W -' m O c O�¢ (D O. O U U W J U C� d 11 Z W U m W= o O U O 00 M N Q O O V er C O `" O T d E U a 0 0 a o m o � M m W rn rn Co Cn N N W n n O O Co co m O O C N N m 0) m m m M (` CD rn ❑ c o 0 F m M M } o o r c am -. C R V O � � � m N Q U m m c C z ¢ m c 0 oa V ❑ O o o O O O O O M Cl) N N U Z. Q E ❑ C7 z O U- Z W O Z H O ¢ LLJ L Y w Y o O n `n o M M O N 0 cc R a W Cl) d rn m Y Of LL ¢ Y = U � L O V U C 3 U C.j 0 O Cl N N O J w Y V af F- z W 2 W U F Q Q ,J W z Z 2' F- 0 F- z F- W F- F- F- W W w --� z O } 2 z F- W F- W ~ W U` W W W W ~ C7 F- �"' ¢ W z `Z 2' Q [ :2 w W W W W w z w w w U` W Z W W Q O z 2 0 0 C7 2 U a W❑ C7 W a a W Q a W < z O U` < z W Y¢ W W Z O C7 C7 z a a❑ F- z a ` U W w U = w w z Q � a Q a - Q z Z z z z z W 0 W a J ¢ ¢ z ~ z z 0 z z W w R z Q D J F z W F 2 z W 2 z 2 w Q 2 p 2 z z O z Q Z= J z z R¢ 0 Q >> LL z LD Q w ¢ a O W O O fn W x : U W� W U W U W W W z U� U C 0 2 2 w W FQ W m~ F- z w❑ W X W y } a' LL' } LL a' 2' W U V w W U a U w U U U z U J U g o � J Z a' ? W' O F (n Cn U W W J a' O J J J J O Z } O O CJ Q (� J Z Z Z U W Q O U O m a LL a a 2' w U LL U a LL U U U a U m a m m U a U U a rn a w w ❑ w O O z w ?> w z Z — Q m a} r F 0 U K m a (n 0 CD _z Z Z _z z Z Z Z Z Z O U <n o Z O U X X K� U) z O z z U)a¢�� 5555 5 z U v O w W W W W W 0000 W W O w O -) W m m o H v_ Z F � I .- I.- a a F- U U U U W 0 W d z w EL d n❑ w a w m m m w W w w w w 'J 'D z w m N ¢ m B co� m asr as Z O W O p w Z O z z z , o z z z z z D, 2 w }¢ c z -z j 0 c� ¢ Q z w w Q w LL 0 JQ 0 z O xs L - 0 2 ~ 2 Z-< H Q 2 x x O x U O z w Z= x w U F p O F H U W w C7 w m c? , w O a z a a z v a w w w w 0 O o v a F- q w w �' z m cn w > z C z w U z LL W? w w >> w w m� z z z z u.. LL z O J LL U °' > m�❑ z z W w O O o O U W Z w w w z J w m 0 a a a w F- Q w z w Q U w d Q w> W t- -j F ¢❑ LL❑ a a 1- O w w O O g O O O O O O O m d¢ Z O O O o w� ft O m F - � s¢� g m 2 w O U U z W 2 U z w LL m O g 0 LL w Z U w ¢ LL - LL O U W CL U 0 > } of d >- H a z O W ❑ Z w W W W Q Q > > > > > X X U N W U J g❑ z❑ m 2❑ U m w w w w w O w Z CO Z a Z a v) a a m Q w U o o o o❑ 0F - <0 O Q J ZE O O m F > w a LL 0 as 0 0 0 w m m U LL m P: > ¢ F O m a w W ¢ U w P: O o W Z W 0 2 [n F )' U` F a J W J Z 0 U O O C7 C� C7 C� Q w a O� W z U w O W U F a z f - J Q a' w !On O w w Z Z Z Z Z F U 2 Z W a' F I w W U Z J= fn O z o Q O O Q F- O w w¢ rr¢ Q Q Q¢¢ a o p Z U ~ O w Z 2 Z- w 0 O o �I ai w Z O O °� U O Q a d w Z O o m a¢} Z m m O} w w =O N >❑ z m w Z w w❑ U U F- m z z a a U U U U U O w a' Q Q O= � O❑ >- ¢ O x w U Q to U>- >02C La- a a) m Q¢¢¢¢ Q¢ m m m m m m m m m U U o o U U o 0 0 0 o o W LL LL LL LL C V - r CO O O W CO W N R O N N n O O O O O O O O m M O O (O 0 N O O n R O O O m O O N C1 O 7 N 0 CA O O O O O t� V O O O (O I� O O N co (D co O V t{ O O O (O O O O t0 N O M N V (O M 6 O OJ M M V O O O O O M (D O 1r.: O 0 V 6 L 6 .6 : N O uj E O N c- V' a- V' (O M CO 0) (O (.- m (l- co N N N r 7 V m I- � V O co O (O N w co N N N O O Q co N r r V N a- a- M M r N r r �- r co O N r M N co Y M V O (A O N M V 1O (D t� N 0 O N M V tO (O I M M M M � W 0 O N M U N N N N N N N N N N M M M y0. m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O U ( C t t0 ( O c c O ( ( O c c ( co c c O O c c0 [ (D O ( O c CO CO ( C C O CO CO ( CO CO (00 M V N ti N l4 c a z z z z w w w 2 2 w W w w O c7 O ¢ Q Q z z r F ¢ ¢ U W Z W w Z Z Z z F- F- F- F- Q g J Z W 2 2 F- F- F- F- Z w J F- W W F- to W J Z F- z W O 2 W W Z Z Z Z F W Z : Z W g z z g w w Z F Q Z¢ C7 Q¢ w w O z 2 O O Z� a O Z Z _ Q W W Q Z W (� Q W Q W rL Z Z N Q Q¢ Q° C7 Z� z Z r G 2 0 Z w 2 w O (n Z w Q Q Q Q Q I z Q Q Q Z O Q O O_ O Q Q Q Q 5 Q Q O � t= O F- Q Z O ° z Z g 2 w Q g U Z W F FQQ p Z F S m Q W Z Q Z Z Z J Z U V C7 Q W y W Q Q W F U� W p ¢ U W¢ w U U m W W W W T U W a . 2 w Z ww 2 W w w? W U C p p W U '-� J a <L a J d Y Q a a Z J J J J n O Q Q U it 0 J Z ¢ W J F - ¢ Q U O U U w y O m a a a a to 0 a a s O w w U ? a a p z z a m 0 a m a� a a v a a a �? a a z �? s a m a v a m U) rn O 1 z z z Z W Z m Z_ Z Z_ to = QQ < O a0 U W W W W to K K ~ Q U Q Q w¢¢ Q w 5 5 5 W Q ca U p a, U w w W W Z Z w w Z p p to O w O j Z W J W 7 Z r F- J � S= F- F- O T Z T d to x d W Z a m N Z d C w Z Z 2 d Z cn (n Z Z F U O W U a W ° F- U) q ) a W F- U m U Q Q 0 J w J J Q Q Q U U J m � � U Z Z U a T J z F z CL o f Ca r m F U' 0 a s F - U Z Z a Z C7 n- to Z OF z z z U T m� >- m m d E W 2 M¢ a¢ z z z z a W w w a W F W Z W m z w w a w a F w Z W Z w v 3> d a a w a 0 a F- i= a a O w w a z m U w a m U o Z w o w> w w U o a p O z m O T W T W m T Z z 7� F- 2 2 Z C7 w a T Z W W m S m J >> W lL O ¢- m I O o a F- a w o a a 0 0 F F O z O a r O° a a s O r >> w° o o �+ s a s a° Q F- w w O O O J w a a W W¢ O O U w° 0 0 0° O O m U O m m F- H Q W O O m (L Z m F- to to g Z U of Q 0 Z U W ° U) W z z J W I-- O U} Z F U > (o Z J m Cl) w z0 ° w z CD m m U U J?> T Q fo Z a' J T U) v o N t v W? C) o¢ t p ? w W z w F n p Z Z Z to j z -- m F U) 0 0} Of 2 Zp J F- m fA Q 6 > w ~ Z_ W_ fn Z O } S ° W ¢ ° Z ( U J > w W Cl) w O O W W, K Q Z m z 2 a a z °? Q Z U° Z Q W W a 7 W Q O o w Q?¢ -' w w 0 O F w u W O F m O O z w ° x>� z ¢ z z a m> K Z O F ° F_ U p F- °� ¢ a Z m } O U m p. , j w W W m a' O W W W Z Z w W w a LL i F o 0 o z W c9 m a QQ QQ w C U) z z0 C� ° Q w w W v a s d m 2 J U x Z Fp- U p m a' = Z F W Z W W U O a d w= W JO CO CO m - J Q Y 0 0 2 Q Q Q) O w J¢ a z to z o o f z O m 6¢ w z w w Z z z m O .Z 6 O i..5- -°� W Z U U m T m m O a Q O O O w O w a¢ t�i > a L 0 (7 C7 C7 s - Y z? Y Y J J 2 M 2 M Z" O a a O C! . a - a m to rn m m V m m n O N m N M O m w n O O O O O m O O O M V O O w w O V' m O M w ` O m O O C O C N r n n w n N n L N m M M w O O n O q O O O m n O O w to r m cr Cl! N O O m n O O 3 p ri t+j i{ CO c0 n R V tD O O O N O w w O O N O O O m N I� m V CM w O N O O W w O O) O E M (` N f0 n N m W� N n O 7 'V' M N M N r N co m M V w r V' w O K O Q r r Cl) r O m r N r V r O O N N (7 O J w W a' U # LO Y 7 m (0 n w m O M N C m w n w O O N M V m tD n CO m O N CO co m w n N m 0) N M C 0 w w w m m m CO (O m W CO m m 0 w m a 0 n n n n n n n n tD CS a w m t0 m o m w m w m O m m L m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mmmmmmm(0 U (D w c0 m m t0 t0 c0 w 0 0 w t0 t0 to m w m to w t0 w w c0 tD m m t0 t0 0 t0 w (D (D w t0 w m ID to w M V co 0 co m N m v a m w Z5 CL a m Y � 2 m Cl) L LL O U U m U 0 O O N N O O J 0 W Y U Ir O i 0 O Cl) v t- z w 0 w w 0 m w z Z Z ¢ O Z g z F- LL W 2 J W U) Y W F U W < U 2 w m O W w Z Z W Z ¢ W d Z O W Z O W F- LL' < O W ¢ 2 r¢ Of 2 Cl w Z Q z W W Z Z Z M O U J O xx w J z¢ z 0 ¢¢¢ O ¢ i- F p U t Q y = ¢ U w U U U W 2 w ¢ J Z ¢ c 1 2 U U a w U U a 2 w ¢ W J 2 Of 2 3 W > J O >_ >_ m w O O x w w w K? cn Q� O m} U U m 0 w U U? Of U) U LL U U d co J LL w w w � o O Y F Y ~ Z Z Z Z w ~ Z (7 w C7 W W w w w w Z W Ur p U U? U U¢ p Z J J F J J ¢ w 2 U Y w K 0 LL K � w Z U- y ai a m U- m m m w w m CD cn } z zz a ¢ w w w m z � ~ O 5 z z Z J J m¢ o Z Z Z m 7 w m c O z m z z d O d d~ 0 Q z w z 2 z m m 0 m Q C7 U Cl) C7 d Q O U ro Z Z m z Z W z z ~ Z } Z O m ~ 0 0 0 F W¢¢ w F m W w C) w W a 0 F W 3 W t U W a W U F d p d U Z U d w ¢ 2 d O J J> Z LL' F- > LL m 7 J m C') J 2 W LL ¢ m m¢ o 2 2 w¢ O m w m w w w¢ F 0 0 0 w w a U � p � O U z w( m m co W Z F- J Z 2 U) U U 0MMW Zoo w oW�Z o z = a O z a z m> W u� J m J o LL' W w a U w `6 ¢ J J 2� O w z U w z Z w n 2 E- ¢ _ w O z or O X_ D w J¢ M O U W U¢ W U z z w -' v a _j O Q W= W -~-� y Y F-. cd U S> Z¢ U w v a¢¢ O ~ " �„ v w m g U z m 2 o h F- F- W Z to o w w m LL 2 O O Z w J U O n� m CL z O z w a m O U 0 w Of w LL 0 t- F- 0 0 D D 0 H c m C7 m O O N N O M O r- O c— O N_ m N c� m O O O O V r M U) M O 1� O N C O O V O N (R In O M N O cD O O m c0 N O O O In C u� N N M O O O? (q O O c6 f� co O c0 m V O O O C N O m co N M V N O m c o) m M c0 O m m 1- N o O m V N V' N O m O Q N N cD O M V' V m co O m w c0 O M to , c N N E C' 1n r CO V' r N O N (D L d' m ccJ 1- W c0 N N "r N 7 M_ c0 Il ¢ r m <- C11 N ` c0 c0 c0 V M rt � Lo c0 i— m m O N M V m M 1- M m O N M V 1p O O m O N M , :r lq M n U m m m m m O O O O_ O O O O O O _ _ _ m O O O O O ——— r e— —— —— r L m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m U co c0 cD (O c0 cD CO to (O ED c0 c0 to c0 c0 c0 (D c0 co c0 co c0 c0 c0 c0 m) c0 (O c0 (O c0 cD to C/) O a Of O m LL as o f W xs QQ Q Q W = U LL m Z w w 0 0 z U w LL U LL O LL m O Of m o Z J m w Z U r < 0 O � - Q z ¢ F O U W w O ¢ ¢ ¢ z Y c7 H U z Q (p LL' 2 J Z w w Q W w o 2 m m m W W m O Z w J U O n� m CL z O z w a m O U 0 w Of w LL 0 t- F- 0 0 D D 0 H c m C7 m O O N N O M O r- O c— O N_ m N c� m O O O O V r M U) M O 1� O N C O O V O N (R In O M N O cD O O m c0 N O O O In C u� N N M O O O? (q O O c6 f� co O c0 m V O O O C N O m co N M V N O m c o) m M c0 O m m 1- N o O m V N V' N O m O Q N N cD O M V' V m co O m w c0 O M to , c N N E C' 1n r CO V' r N O N (D L d' m ccJ 1- W c0 N N "r N 7 M_ c0 Il ¢ r m <- C11 N ` c0 c0 c0 V M rt � Lo c0 i— m m O N M V m M 1- M m O N M V 1p O O m O N M , :r lq M n U m m m m m O O O O_ O O O O O O _ _ _ m O O O O O ——— r e— —— —— r L m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m U co c0 cD (O c0 cD CO to (O ED c0 c0 to c0 c0 c0 (D c0 co c0 co c0 c0 c0 c0 m) c0 (O c0 (O c0 cD to tO N r o m N ca C 0 - Z' W cc a E O o U x o "' U d U- 0 - U 7 U U o m v M (co O O O O N t0 O O O R N C V W r r O O C"-, cp N M O 0 CO C M n O O V 6 7 ` N � O � O O O M { O O O n r N E N O O co ch cc (O O fl !� N co O O n Q O r r r cq O O r tri N cv�j N (0 O ~ p W U 0 D O LL K F Y Z w CD p W. Z p D p 1 Z LL Z U' C) p W p LL� LL p LL O Z w w U 0 Z U Z O Q F_ F- Z W J LL LL LL W Q W W W LL ZZ C? Y F.. W K 5 x p W2 0 Crn W Y W U` O LL K F— W Q d Q U 1— fn 0 W K W O p w W m 0 2 p, LO E O O O N O R O m O N N 0 l0 N t0 O O O O O O O O O If7 O O N O O_ O O O O co O U O N O N O N O V O V O V O V Cl O O O O O O O FAPR -24 -01 03 =50 AM 742567D12P532D7 9522333343 RCViH April 20M Responsible of Alcohol Policies Procedures the- Hourly Associates • All alcoholic beverages will be served or sold only by designated associates who have been trained to identify if the guests are of legal drinking age, ® Associates responsible for the suggestive selling, serving, or preparation of alcoholic beverages will be responsible for understanding Training Task #5, viewing the RSOA video, and completing the RSOA quiz with a minimum score of 90 %, • Associates will ask for and receive a valid Minnesota identification card from each guest or associate appearing to be 40 years of age or less prior to placing an alcoholic beverage order for them. Any other type of identification will be authorized by the MOD only. (Associates at Woodbury, Oak Park Heights, Hastings, and Duluth are authorized to accept Wisconsin identification). • In order to be served an alcoholic beverage associates must be at least 21 years of age, out of uniform, off duty, at a table, show proper identification, pay full price, and have ordered their drink from a server. • A maximum of two drinks may be served to any employee per day. ® No person will be served an alcoholic beverage if they appear to be in the "Yellow or Red Zone'. • No special pours or over pours will be allowed at any time. • No alcoholic beverages can be served after the restaurant has completed `last call" ® The only people allowed behind the bar are on duty bartenders, bar backs, and managers. • No Associate shall be seated at the bar whether on duty or off duty. I agree to follow all points of this policy and procedure statement. Associate Signature: Managers Signature Date• ? -00 )0 Date: P-02 fil TO: Mayor and City Council, City of Shakopee, Minnesota FROM: Jim Thomson, City Attorney DATE: April 25, 2001 Liquor License Hearings Notices have been sent to six liquor licensees concerning alleged violations of selling alcoholic products to persons under the age of 21. These notices informed the licensees that the City Council will consider this issue at its May 1, 2001 meeting at 7:15 p.m. Notices were sent to the following licensees: Licensee 1. Veterans of Foreign Wars, 1201 East Third Avenue 2. Heyde Hospitality, Inc. (Arizona's), 1244 Canterbury Road 3. American Legion Club Post No. 2, 1266 East 1' Avenue 4. Applebee's, 1568 Vierling Drive East 5. Fraternal Order of Eagles #4120, 220 West 2 nd Avenue 6. Pizza Huts of the Northwest, 257 South Marschall Road Date of Violation October 21, 2000 October 21, 2000 October 21, 2000 October 21, 2000 October 21, 2000 October 22, 2000 The maximum penalty that the City Council can impose for violation of its liquor regulations is a penalty of up to $2,000, a suspension of the liquor license for up to 60 days, a revocation of the liquor license, or any combination of these penalties. If the City Council is considering imposing a suspension or revocation, the licensee must be given the opportunity for a hearing by an independent hearing officer. The purpose of this agenda item is to allow the licensees to appear before the Council and either admit or deny the violation. If they admit the violation, there is no need for a hearing. If, however, a licensee denies the violation, a hearing before an independent hearing officer will need to be scheduled if the City Council is considering suspension or revocation of the license. My recommendation as to how to proceed is as follows: 1. I will give a brief summary of the background and purpose for the agenda item. 2. The Mayor would then call each case and the licensee will have an opportunity to admit or deny the violation and to give any extenuating circumstances they feel are relevant. If the licensee admits the violation, the City Council can impose the penalty immediately. If the licensee denies the violation, we will need to schedule a hearing before an JJT- 196632v1 1 SH155 -23 independent hearing officer, unless the Council is not considering a suspension of the license. The alleged violations all involve first -time offenses under the City liquor regulations. Attached to this memorandum is a summary of the penalties that the City Council has previously imposed for first -time violations. JJT- 196632vl 2 SH155 -23 f' • • • April 9, 1999 violations occurred. July 6, 1999 City Council imposed civil penalties as follows: 1. Speedway /SuperAmerica LLC, 1155 East First Avenue $500 administrative penalty and 5 day suspension 2. Twin Cities Stores, Inc., dba Oasis Market, 1147 Canterbury Road $500 administrative penalty and a 10 day suspension 3. Crossroads Liquor of Shakopee, LLC, 1262 Vierling Drive East $1,000 administrative penalty and a 10 day suspension; suspension will not go into effect if there are no violations pertaining to the liquor license or tobacco license for a period of one year August 13, 1999 violations occurred. November 3 and 16, 1999 City Council imposed civil penalties as follows: 1. Crossroads Liquor of Shakopee LLC, 1262 Vierling Drive East 2 1L Nov. 16,1999 $2,000 administrative penalty and 2 day suspension plus an 8 day suspension that was suspended and will not go into effect if there are no violations pertaining to liquor license or tobacco license for a period of % one year 2. Canterbury Park Concessions Inc., 1100 Canterbury Road Nov. 16,1999 $1,000 administrative penalty 3. Magnum Management Corp. dba Valleyfair, One Valleyfair Drive Nov. 3,1999 $1,000 administrative penalty & 10 day suspension that was suspended and will not go into effect if there are no violations pertaining to liquor or tobacco license for one year. August 20, 1999 violations occurred. 4. Turtles Bar and Grill, Inc., 132 East 1st Avenue Nov. 16,1999 $1,000 administrative penalty 5. Tom Thumb Food Markets, 590 So. Marschall Road Nov. 3,1999 $1,000 administrative penalty and 5 day suspension September 17,1999 violations occurred. Sabroso Inc., 1120 Eat 1st Avenue Nov. 16,1999 $1,000 administrative penalty is \clerk \j eanette\licenses/ligviola. September 17,1999 violations occurred. 6. Sabroso Inc., 1120 Eat 1st Avenue Nov. 16,1999 $1,000 administrative penalty is \clerk \j eanette\licenses/ligviola. M CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Heritage Square MEETING DATE: May 1, 2001 Introduction: Town and Country Homes seeks preliminary plat approval for a 65 acre, mixed- residential project. The subject site is located south of STH 169, east of CSAH 79, and west of CSAH 17. The project has been the subject of a conditional use permit (CUP) review, and the Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals have approved the CUP. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed preliminary plat on April 19, 2001, and by a vote of 4 -2, recommended approval with conditions as contained in Resolution No. 5518. Attached for the Council's information is a copy of the report provided to the Planning Commission at its April 19 meeting. Alternatives: 1. Offer and pass Resolution No. 5518, approving the preliminary plat of Heritage Square subject to the conditions as proposed. 2. Approve preliminary plat of Heritage Square subject to revised conditions. 3. Deny the proposed preliminary plat of Heritage Square. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat on April 19, 2001. It recommended approval of the preliminary plat by a vote of 4 -2 subject to the recommended conditions, as well as an added condition that the trees be allowed to be planted in the boulevard, but that their maintenance and replacement become the responsibility of the homeowners' association. Action Requested: Offer Resolution No. 5518 approving the preliminary plat of Heritage Square subject to conditions. Zoning Bounda Parcel Boundal 0 R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \cc\2001 \0503 \ppheritagesq. doc 1 / 1 C1 I / ININLINN 1 <1 1. 1 1 C1 1 I1 1 ' WHEREAS, Town and Country Homes, applicant and property owners have made application for preliminary plat approval of Heritage Square; and WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as found on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat on April 19, 2001; and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission has recommended approval subject to the conditions listed below; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat request at its meeting of May 1, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1 1 BY :1E CITY COUNCIL O 01 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, I1 1 follows: That the final plat of Heritage Square is approved subject to the following conditions; I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements, as well as payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. 3 1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges for the residential portion of the plat, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule for the entire plat. 6. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. 7. The public parkland shall be dedicated with the final plat. 8. The plat and street names shall be revised to avoid confusion with existing plats and streets. C. A MNDOT drainage permit will be required for this development. D. The landscape plan shall be revised to clarify the number of shrubs that meet minimum size requirements under the City Code. E. Trees planted in the boulevard areas of the public streets in this plat shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association to maintain and replace. F. The plat and other relevant documents shall be revised to include turnarounds for shared driveways in excess of 150 ft. in length. 11. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply; A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). B. No berming, ponding, signage, or landscaping shall be located in MNDOT right - of -way. C. Any work within the Scott County right -of -way will require a utility permit from the County. D. Any required sound mitigation on this site shall be the responsibility of the developer and their assigns. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER SOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat of Heritage Square does not constitute a representation or guarantee by the City of Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of water service that will be available to lots within the plat as they are developed_ Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, n held the day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee 5 f-=x H[PiT t'-' 1� 5. NQ <5.31 p LJ M t I�PiZ� PL cDf- Htr—tTs�f The North Half of the Northwest Quarter (NJ of NWj) excepting therefrom the North ten (10) rods thereof, Section 18, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota; Also Excepting: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NWJ of NWj) of Section 18, Township 115, Range 22 West, shown as Parcel 57 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat Numbered 70 -4 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota. [MEETING DATE: April 5,200 11 SITE INFORMATION: Adopted Comprehensive Plan: Residential MUSA: This site is within the M U boundary. [Exhibits: A- Site Location Map B - Applicant's narrative C — Landscape Plan D- Preliminary Plat ra Ai- E- Existing conditions map m Town & County has made application for preliminary plat approval of Heritage Square. A copy of the applicant's narrative is attached. Traffic and Circulation: The Board of Adjustments and Appeals has approved a conditional use permit for this development, contingent on resolution of the alignment of 17' Avenue. Since approval of the CUP for this development, a meeting has been held with the applicant and ISIS 720 regarding the U alignment of 17'` Avenue. It appears that it will follow the ali ent proposed with the preliminary plat. The plat as proposed contains a number of shared private driveways that exceed 150 feet in length. Under the City's engineering design criteria, these are required to have turnarounds. A condition requiring modification of the plat to include such turnarounds has been included in the draft conditions of approval. The preliminary plat does propose the dedication of about 5.49 acres for public park use. This equals about 8.3% of the gross area of the site. The proposed land dedication is consistent with the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (P ), which contemplates future dedication of land to complete this neighborhood park from the property to the south when it develops. The proposed conditions of approval include the proposed land dedication. e 1 1 This is an agricultural site, and thus the woodland preservation requirements of the Code would not apply. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. City Code Sec. 11.60, Subd. 8, Landscaping Requirements, requires for residential developments over 6 units in size that at least 15% of the "lot" shall be landscaped. For this site, that would equal about 9.95 acres. The applicant has proposed the following quantities of plants; • Overstory deciduous trees 601 • Ornamental trees 530 • Coniferous trees 139 • Shrubbery 1463 (53.5 %) • TOTAL 2733 It appears that the proposed trees meet or exceed the ordinance size standard, but it is not clear whether the proposed shrubbery does, since the ordinance standard is stated as 5 gallons while the applicant's plan states sizes in terms of pot size. This should be clarified before approval of the final plat. Other Comments: 2 ® The Acting Building Official has commented that building, water, and sewer service detail review will be required. 1. Recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Heritage Square, subject to conditions as outlined below. L The following procedural actions must be completed prior tot the recording oft the 3 C. Any work within the Scott County right-of-way will require a utility permit firo the County. D. Any required sound mitigation on this site shall be the responsibility of the develop d their assigns. Planning staff recommends either alternative 1, 2 or 3. Offer a motion consistent with alternatives 1,2 or 3. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g:\boaa-pc\2001\apri105\ppheritagesquare.doc El nm Developer: Planning & Engineering Consultant: Town & Country Homes, Inc. Westwood Engieering, Inc. Eden Prairie, MN The purpose of this application is to provide the Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff with details of a proposed development and to request several actions. The proposed Heritage Square development will be one of, if not the first community to be reviewed under the City of Shakopee's newly enabled Planned Residential Development ( "PRD ") ordinance. The purpose of the PRD area as stated in the ordinance is "to provide areas for mixed -use development; including single family detached, medium density, and high - density residential, as well as compatible neighborhood commercial and service uses. By allowing mixed -use development, the PRD provides a mechanism for providing a range of housing opportunities and easy accessibility to services within a single development or area of the City of Shakopee.° Heritage Square will be a unique community within the City of Shakopee that incorporates the concepts of new urbanism. The site provides a variety of housing opportunities. There is creative use of open space that encourages pedestrian traffic versus the automobile. Town & Country is confident we can meet your needs and build a community that will be an asset for the City of Shakopee. s agricu . north; a car dealership and high density multi- family housing to the east. The property is open and has been agriculturally active. There are no wetlands on site. The property is bounded by agricultural property to the south; County Road 79 and additional . 1+ U k orooerty to the west' agricultural property, power lines and Highway 169 to the Heritage Square intends to borrow many elements from neo- traditional planning in an effort to create a unique community that emphasizes the pedestrian rather than the automobile. Since its rise in popularity over the last 50 years, the automobile has been the focus of planning and design as it relates to new developments. Subdivisions have been constructed with great emphasis placed on how to most quickly and efficiently drive through and out of neighborhoods. With that being the focus, homeowners have, to a large extent, abandoned pedestrian circulation. Many cities, again demonstrating their emphasis on the automobile, do not have any requirements for sidewalks. That, along with the proliferation of wide streets that allow for fast moving traffic, has created an environment where pedestrians are not only discouraged from walking in their neighborhoods, but feel endangered in doing so. VI. PRELIMINARY T This narrative and the revised drawings reflect the discussions and review comments of the Board of Adjustments and the City Council. The drawings illustrate the general development plan for subdivision, road access and land usage. The plat shows 14 single family lots, 142 Townplex homes, 146 Homestead Homes and 181 Traditional Neighborhood Homes for a total of 483 homes. The site is 66.334 acres making the overall density for the community just under 7.3 homes per acre. The east/west continuation of 17' Avenue is a central element of this PRD Plat. This will provide for a connection of county roads 17 & 79. Trail and sidewalk connections along 17 Avenue will continue along 17 Avenue. Within the PRD ordinance, there is the opportunity to utilize a Conditional Use Permit for 15 different uses. From a residential perspective, those uses could allow for densities of 1 to 18 homes per acre. It would be the intent of Town & Country to seek a middle ground with a Conditional Use Permit allowing up to the projected 7.3 homes per acre. That density would correlate most closely with the requirements of the R -2 Medium Density Residential Zone. Town & Country intends to work with the City of Shakopee Parks Department. Previous discussions with Shakopee City representatives has influenced the park sizes and locations shown in the revised drawings. As Heritage Square is intended to be a pedestrian community, it intends to be non - exclusive encouraging pedestrian traffic not only from its residents, but also from surrounding areas. The Heritage Square PRD Plan has been planned to compliment and flow with the existing land characteristics. Roadways have been aligned to parallel terrain features thereby minimizing land alteration. Roadway design reflects a conscious effort to slow or "calm" traffic. A. Location Heritage Square is located west of Weston Ponds and the recently approved car dealearships along 17 Avenue extending west to County Road 79. B. Legal Description The property consists of 66.334 acres. The property is described as: The North Half of the Northwest Quarter (N112 of NW %4) Excepting Therefrom the North Ten (10) Rods thereof, Section 18, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota; Also Excepting: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 115, Range 22 West, show as Parcel 57 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat Numbered 70-4 as the same is on file and of record in the Office of the Registar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota. Emus A A Comprehensive - Guide Plar The City of Shakopge's Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan mirrors the Approved PRD zoning. Total Gross Acres Total Number of Single Family Lots Total Number of Townplex Homes Total Number of Homestead Homes Total Number of Traditional Neighborhood Homes Total Number of Homes Home Per Acre Max. Per Acre Allowed with a Conditional Use Permit Under PRD Site Utilities and Land Alteration 66.334 Acres 14 142 146 181 483 7.28 18 Heritage Square is presently serviceable by urban utility systems. City watermains are available along the east property line and the City would like the water to be looped utilizing an existing service just south of Highway 169. Sanitary sewer mains are also available to the site. The subdivision lies within the City's Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A central sanitary sewer system is planned for Heritage Square. Each building will be connected to the proposed lateral sewer system which will discharge into the City trunk sewer system. The sewer lines will be extended from the nearby trunk line in the existing system which is known to be on the south side of highway 169. The Preliminary Utility Plan illustrates the general location and invert" elevations for the future sanitary sewers. The installation of the lateral sewers will be done prior to the construction of each street segment. The system will provide individual service to each proposed lot and future multiple - family building. Watermain The site will be served via the current expansion of the Shakopee Public Utilities ( "SPUC - ) central water system. SPUC will own and maintain the common central system and bill the property owners. The water system will be "fed" via the SPUC trunk water system. The existing water system is in place around the site perimeter. The Preliminary Utility Plan illustrates the general placement and routing of the future water system. Storm Sewer The Preliminary Utility Plan and the Preliminary Site Grading Plan each illustrate the general layout of proposed storm sewers and ponding areas. A central storm sewer system is planned which will convey street runoff water to treatment/sedimentation ponds. These ponds have been strategically placed to intercept and treat runoff before it continues downstream to the wetlands. The storm sewer system will be designed to City standards, as will the sedimentation ponds. The City of Shakopee has overall jurisdiction over Heritage Square. Other local, state and federal agencies will also have individual permit authority over this project. Specifically, The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has review authority over Sanitary Sewer extensions and NPDES. The Minnesota Department of Health will review Water system expansion plans. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) will have jurisdiction and permit authority if "public waters" are to be worked in. Scott County will have review and permit authority for work that must be done on their property. Preliminary discussion with Country representatives indicates their acknowledgement of our plans with no significant obstacles for approval. I _ - Necessary permits will be obtained from each agency during the Final Plat and Plan -" stage of each phase of the project. VII. TENTATIVE STAGING Heritage Square will be staged over four development phases. The first stage will begin as soon as development approvals are secured and weather permits. lll. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY The Developer intends to develop the property as soon as all of the governmental approvals and permits are secured. Installation of public and private site improvements will be privately financed. Financing will be secured utilizing Town & Country Homes existing credit facilities. Financial guarantees will be posted with the City to assure the satisfactory completion of project infrastructure. E�oa_ J 1 01 I I y u O E v � � � m m r. m m ` r', iJ•I � mo N 99 I I n n H N h N a � Sft m m 9IL; — 1-33 -s- M I ^ 96 fzz LU GZf Sfl �` J �o 99 9B w 96 99 - 00i SLi O N I N W TF M - M I w ° a I � z P4 LLJ v Sft N 1 N i 98 sit 98 \` L a to i =v N O O J L -, O F0O- • a F 3 O N n a \ t d ' � m m •. o 3 y p a ^ 9 N 99 O Sb \ O v m x r I m 00 m m \ v z y \ I b o o E o N 9 a � � N LAI 5z M on I �`• J oN`3� Q 2 \2tic o •a`no� iN a 2�vm'a m`v o ° ° E ° O q I I ldl �`�`AV O c vi in o - a vNi2U IJ z I I a s a n ° z O m — — _._.. C!c Stl •� 3 „vZ,ll ° OON 0 0 n O ZA ZZI ° N O 99 n 5a �•. Ja 4a - - - ° m M Q w I O .� W I novc O N J w. _ 0• l ° to �- O b v�� _, o, 0 i a, oa oo, c a c vv v, z c o _ _w �. u °` �n m ° d' Q J vi I c T F - - a I I 2 m = W� - a a o o.P QOM o C ? oz m = d C) [ Z ° v a,�"0? h o -- t c O•- °i - Z c ¢ oOFC I N O2vo a,N 3 ory b�v `o a w� v,o - orn ° rn 1 SL Sol - HB oc @ I .o Z N I 7p 2oc C rnoOO . o� 2 ^ ny V W S o fA o'v'a �`m vq c oo o a °o �o� o Q o I ^. a ° S° E�oa_ J 1 01 I I y u O E v � � � m m r. m m ` r', iJ•I � mo N 99 I I n n H N h N a � Sft m m 9IL; — 1-33 -s- M I ^ 96 fzz LU GZf Sfl �` J �o 99 9B w 96 99 - 00i SLi O N I N W TF M - M I w ° a I � z P4 LLJ v Sft N 1 N i 98 sit 98 \` L a to i =v N O O J L -, O F0O- • a F 3 O N n a \ t d ' � m m •. o 3 y p a ^ 9 N 99 O Sb \ O v m x r I m 00 m m \ v z y \ I b o o E o N 9 a � � N LAI 5z M on I �`• J oN`3� Q 2 \2tic o •a`no� iN a 2�vm'a m`v o ° ° E ° O q I I ldl �`�`AV t'� �2 �2 c o.c ~O~ ovw vi in o - a vNi2U IJ z I I a s a n ul .t m — — _._.. C!c Stl •� 3 „vZ,ll ° OON �— \ I r O ZA ZZI ° 901 ® O 99 n 5a �•. Ja 4a - - m M I f O O �n m m — I SLI a I I 2 m I l I I oz m L 24 S 99 98� 99 I vi ° - I T 1 SL Sol - HB oc @ I .o Z N 1 ha Sf l• 99\ ^ ny V W S o I a Or1 N N h Ofl m a a a � N f, z o \. s S T a 96 izn 9B o f c w o c 99 - Oct �i33 AVd��1iiS- - F E I I I E�oa_ J 1 01 I I y u O E v � � � m m r. m m ` r', iJ•I � mo N 99 I I n n H N h N a � Sft m m 9IL; — 1-33 -s- M I ^ 96 fzz LU GZf Sfl �` J �o 99 9B w 96 99 - 00i SLi O N I N W TF M - M I w ° a I � z P4 LLJ v Sft N 1 N i 98 sit 98 \` L a to i =v N O O J L -, O F0O- • a F 3 O N n a \ t d ' � m m •. o 3 y p a ^ 9 N 99 O Sb \ O v m x r I m 00 m m \ v z y \ I b o o E o N 9 a � � N M on I �`• h n w h. g O q I "O a s a m .t m •� I r O O 99 n �Sfi OI m I f O O �n m m ol9 SLI a I I 2 m I l I m L 24 S 99 98� 99 vi vi ° - I T 1 @ I .o Z N 1 ha Sf l• 99\ E�oa_ J 1 01 I I y u O E v � � � m m r. m m ` r', iJ•I � mo N 99 I I n n H N h N a � Sft m m 9IL; — 1-33 -s- M I ^ 96 fzz LU GZf Sfl �` J �o 99 9B w 96 99 - 00i SLi O N I N W TF M - M I w ° a I � z P4 LLJ v Sft N 1 N i 98 sit 98 \` L a to i =v N O O J L -, O F0O- • a F 3 O N n a \ t d ' � m m •. o 3 y p a ^ 9 N 99 O Sb \ O v m x r I m 00 m m \ v z y \ I b o o E o N 9 a � � N I 3-i y cc bo cu VJ N M on �O n h h. g O q �` "O a s a m .t m •� I r O 99 n a n h^ m y n n n h n h h OI m I f O �n O � 99 f6 a I I 2 m I l I m L 24 S 99 98� 99 vi vi ° F I T 99\ ^ V W S o I a Or1 N N h Ofl m a a a � I 3-i y cc bo cu VJ N M on a s a m I I r O 99 n a n h^ m y n n n h n h h OI m I f O - I 96 gg 98� 99 I T 99\ ^ o o K� _ c - O C O /� 2 �e 16 �_ - }�] � 96 - _� 4H y a � U 4 � Lu — _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � — - — _ — _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ J cL LLI lo 3 W% 0 N d 0 I 3-i y cc bo cu VJ N J J \ Q I I P w O 7 O ZSB .� PZ I I 6 0 NN a H I o o O cn 1 I _ i 02 1 I I W W V I I I \\ C tp C N Q) N0l1 Jl7M15N07 830NN V38Y - I c�� , f t z Iw�.y I II Q� 4 ...... _ .. \ � I I OSB- 11 OON ZSB .� u I I w O o � O L O S rnw 1 I I , i 02 1 I I W W V I I I z re v � C tp C N Q) 4zR (a Or Cry C . I c�� , f F - Iw�.y —1�.� vI Ql Y T I 4 ...... _ .. - � � OSB- 11 OON ZSB .� u w O o � O L O S rnw 1 I I , i 02 1 I I W W V O o� I aP OUR z re v � C tp C N Q) 4zR (a Or Cry C . I c�� , f Ql Y T 2 O 0 I . O PC V O Q � 0 O 0® m¢ y I A V t � .6/ Ai i I :•:1 L � C - .•' I 6 E 'Igll rlbpeSNynl � I l '� �1 r _ V M3�Id'id)O rl0 J d ° : 75 a,:. Bi N G o _�...... _....... t-F O 0�l W x Ul u w O o � O L O S rnw by roc_ i 02 1 I rTf't� �O m. W W V t � .6/ Ai i I :•:1 L � C - .•' I 6 E 'Igll rlbpeSNynl � I l '� �1 r _ V M3�Id'id)O rl0 J d ° : 75 a,:. Bi N G o _�...... _....... t-F O 0�l o ° o r; W x Ul u w O o � O L O S rnw by roc_ i 02 rn C7 rTf't� �O m. W W V O o� •X «S W aP OUR z re v � C tp C N Q) 4zR (a Or Cry C . 000: dh OC�r� o ° o r; S N 0 U V 2 O W W x Ul u w O o � O L O J .y s U rn C7 bO W W V � O •X «S W S N 0 U V 2 O W T W = 2 N p 4 \ \ s q I O j O k 4 2 t . . � n o G m c \ ` O v" c� 00 � o• W o 1 n U O W W V W h h m V V a G Ql Y T 2 O 0 O PC V O Q � 0 O 0® m¢ y I A V T W = 2 N p 4 \ \ s q I O j O k 4 2 t . . � n o G m c \ ` O v" c� 00 � o• 0 3gY V 0 3gY I a O o— o o i3 — o xx ca i Iz HI O PL4 �. -- - J L -- J U u to .......... .. ........ cz 0 5 f - T 1 0 O X „ ED Ei t U. U U a z T m T T T uj Em 4. �L-�j VII H n 3 I R Q la 15 E E zo Z3 I r 03 O ............. . .. . ..... .. .. 9 Mem TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development SUBJECT: Shakopee Crossings Planned Unit Development ME ETING DATE: May 1, 2001 Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership has made application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval of Shakopee Crossings. The subject site is located north of Southbridge Parkway, west of CSAH 18, and south of STH 169. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at its April 5 and 19 meetings. Accompanying this report for the Council's information is a copy of the report that was provided to the Planning Commission for its April 19 meeting. At the conclusion of that meeting the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6 -0, recommended approval of the PUD to the City Council subject to conditions as presented in the accompanying resolution. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5515, a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development for Shakopee Crossings, subject to conditions as set forth below. 2. Approve Resolution No. 5515, a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development with revised conditions. 3. Do not approve Resolution No. 5515. 4. Table the request for additional information. �' 1 1 1 1 „1 • 1 ,, The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in Resolution No. 5515. 1 ' 1 1` Approve Resolution No. 5515, a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development of Shakopee Crossings with conditions as presented, or with revised conditions. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director U WHEREAS, Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership is the Applicant and Owner of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows as found on Exhibit A, attached: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Planned Unit Development for Shakopee Crossings on April 5 and 19th, 2001, and has recommended its approval; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing for the Planned Unit Development were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. THEREFORE, 1 BY THE 1 THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, Mows: That the Planned Unit Development Shakopee Crossings is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the site shall generally comply with the site /phasing plan dated February 20, 2001, except as that site plan may be subsequently amended after review and approval of the Shakopee Planning Commission and City Council. 2. As applicable, the conditions of Resolution No. 5510 approving the preliminary plat of Shakopee Crossings 1 St Addition, shall apply to this PUD. Specifically, but not exclusively, this includes the restriction on the issuance of building permits until completion of the intersection improvements and signalization at Southbridge Parkway and CSAH 18. 9 6_ 7. Landscaping and lighting for the Wal -Mart site shall conform to the plans submitted with the application. All trash storage areas shall be fully enclosed (including a top) using building materials the same as, or similar to the front facades of the buildings. All site lighting shall be directed downward, and shall use light standard designs that minimize the visibility of the light sources off -site. Berming and landscaping shall comply with City Code requirements. A separate lighting plan and district shall be approved for this PUD, similar to that approved for the East Dean Lake PUD /Southbridge. Adopted in _ held the day of session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Elm PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Hohnes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 5515, presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 4th day of April, 2000, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of 7 2001. Judith S. Cox, City Clerk PUDShakCross/W9U CITY OF SHAKOP Mem TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: R_ Michael Leek, Community Development Director S CT: Shakopee Crossings Planned Unit Development (PUD) 4�_( gOA Conditional User Permit for Outside Storage, i.e. a Garden Center for Wal- Mart Conditional Use Permit for a Gas Station in Connection with the Proposed Wal -Mart Store ME ETING DATE: April 19, 2001 Applicant: Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership (Steve Soltau) Property Chvners: Same Location: West of County Road 18 and north and south of Southbridge Parkway Current Zoning: Highway Business (B 1); Community Commercial (CC); and Planned Residential District (PRD) Zones (Pending approval of the final plat) Adjacent Zoning: North: Highway 169 South: Light Industrial (II) Zone East: County Road 18 West: Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone/PUD 199; Comp. Plan: Commercial and Medium Density Residential Draft Comp. Plan: Commercial and Medium Density Residential Area: 80 Acres +/- ,SA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. The PUD, as well as the CUPs for the proposed Wal -Mart garden center and gas station were continued for additional information at the April 5"' meeting of the Board and Commission. At the time of revision of this report, no additional information had been received. If and when, such information is provided to staff, it will be made available to the Board and Commission. 1 At the April 5"' meeting it was made known that the Wal -Mart is proposed to include an auto service center. This use also requires a conditional use permit, and staff has informed the applicant that an amended application and additional information, as well as a new public hearing notice will be required before the Board can take up this specific request. The balance of this report is similar to the report presented on April 5"', but some revisions have been made_ Shakopee Crossings has made application for 3 approvals; PUD, CUP for outside storage (i.e. a garden center as a part of the proposed Wal -Mart), and a CUP for a gas station. This report is divided into 3 sections addressing each of these requests. Separate reports will not be provided for the items, and so the Board/Commission members will need to refer back to this report when each item comes up on the agenda. At the end of each section is 1) a list of alternative actions available to the Board or Commission, 2) stafPs recommendation, and 3) a requested action. Because the plat of Shakopee Crossings has not been approved, the lots to which possible PUD and CUP conditions would attach have not been finalized. For that reason, in each case staff recommends one of two alternatives. First, the Board/Commission may continue the matter with direction to staff to prepare resolutions based on the Commission's direction, these resolutions to be adopted after approval of the final plat of Shakopee Crossings 1' Addition. Second, the Board/Conunission may simply continue the requests until the final plat has been approved. . 1 3 Shakopee Crossings has made application for PUD review for the proposed Shakopee Crossings development, which is comprised of the acreage for commercial use. L I •, � Overview: The applicant has submitted a site plan/phasing plan. The submission does not include a specific landscape plan other than that relative to the proposed Wal -Mart site. The same is true of the lighting plan. Since both of these are critical issues, especially as it relates to the adjacent residential neighborhoods, staff believes that additional information should be provided before the Commission recommends approval of this PUD. Comments from Reviewing Departments and Agencies: FA To recap, the following written comments were received relative to this PUD request: • The Engineering Department has provided continents, a copy of which is attached for the Commission's information. Staff has incorporated these continents into the recommended conditions of approval. • The fire inspector has submitted comments, a copy of which is attached for the Commission's consideration. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD for Shakopee Crossings subject to proposed conditions as follows; 1. This PUD shall not be approved by the City Council unless and until the final plat of Shakopee Crossings 1 Addition is approved. 2. Landscaping and lighting for the Wal -Mart site shall conform to the plans submitted with the application. 3. All trash storage areas shall be fully enclosed (including a top) using building materials the same as, or similar to the front facades of the buildings. 4. All site lighting shall be directed downward, and shall use light standard designs that minimize the visibility of the light sources off -site. 5 Berming and landscaping shall comply with City Code requirements. 6. All conditions of approval of the final plat of Shakopee Crossings I' Addition shall be complied with. 7. Changes in the site plan submitted with this request will be reviewed as amendments to this PUD. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Shakopee Crossings PUD subject to revised conditions. 3. Recommend denial of the proposed Shakopee Crossings PUD. 4. Continue the public hearing for additional information. 5. Close the public hearing, but table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and /or staff to provide additional information. Offer a motion consistent with the Commission's wishes. 3 CUP FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE, I.E. A GARDEN CENTER IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED WAL-MART STORE: The B -1 zoning district does allow open sales lots, and the Board has previously approved Cups for such lots (e.g. CUB Foods, Kmart). City Code Sec. 11.87, Subd. 2.FF provides standards for "open sales lots or any use having exterior storage of goods for sale as follows, 1. Shall be screened from any adjacent residential zone; 2. Shall not have a public address system which is audible from any residential property; 3. Shall be kept neat and orderly; 4. Shall not have any uses in any required front, side, or rear yard setback, or in any required parking area; and 5. Shall not block any sidewalk. The plans submitted do not provide specific details regarding the location of the garden center use, lighting for the garden center, or the materials to be used for the garden center enclosure. This information should be submitted prior to approval of the CUP by the Board. The criteria required for the granting of conditional use permits (per City Code Section 11. 85, Subd. 1) are listed below. As a part of eventual approval, the Board will need to consider these criteria, and findings relative to them. 1. Criteria #1 The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the Criteria 95 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 4 __ The Board may approve the conditional use permit with conditions as proposed, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for action subsequent to a) approval of the final plat of Shakopee Crossings 1 st Addition, and b) approval of the Shakopee Crossings PUD. Staff proposes the following conditions; 1. Shall not have a public address system from any part of the facility that is audible from any residential property. 2. Shall maintain a landscaped buffer 100 feet wide from any residential zone. 3. All on site lighting shall be directed on site (toward the structure, parking areas, etc.) and shall comply with the lighting requirements of the City Code. 4. Trash containers will be stored in fully enclosed areas, including the top. 5. The resolution of approval for this CUP shall not be recorded unless and until the final plat of Shakopee Crossings 1s Addition is approved. Should that not occur, this CUP approval shall be null and void_ 6. The subject property shall also be subject to any relevant conditions of approval for the plat of Shakopee Crossings 1st Addition and the Shakopee Crossings PUD. 7. Landscaping shall conform to City Code requirements. The applicant shall provide, prior to the recording of the CUP, a landscaping bond in an amount equal to 115 percent of the value of the landscaping to ensure compliance during the first year of planting. 8. Loading and delivery areas shall be fully screened from view of residentially zoned property with landscaping plans, as shown on the site plan received April 2, 1999. 9. No outdoor storage or display of goods for sale shall be allowed, unless the City approves a Conditional Use Permit for such use. 10. All delivery of stock or removal of garbage shall be restricted to between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p-m. 11. No outside trailers of any size, type,`or style are to be used for storage, except that (1) no trailer may be parked outside the loading bays on the site for more than 72 hours, and (ii) location of trailers on the site shall be permitted for storage of construction materials, fixtures and inventory necessary for and associated with alterations to and re- fixturing of the store, and iii) trailers may be parked in the loading bays for more than 72 hours. 2. The Board may approve the conditional use permit with revised conditions, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for action subsequent to a) approval of the final plat of Shakopee Crossings 1 st Addition, and b) approval of the Shakopee Crossings PUD. 3. The Board may deny the request, and direct staff to prepare a resolution consistent with its findings. 4. The Board may continue the public hearing for additional information. 5. The Board may close the public hearing, but table the request for additional information. ' / I, / Staff recommends Alternative No. 4, continuation of the public hearing to allow additional information to be provided by the applicant and to allow any issues related to the Preliminary and Final Plat of Shakopee Crossings l'` Addition to be resolved_ ACTTON QUESTE : Offer and pass a motion continuing the public hearing to allow time for the applicant to submit additional information relative to the proposed garden center use. rel CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION IN CONNECTION VTIZZ& PROPOSED O . Shakopee Crossings Partnership has made application on behalf of Wal -Mart for a Conditional Use Permit for a gas station. The 'site plan submitted by the applicant is not specific to the gas station, which makes it difficult to review the proposed plan. For example, it is not clear that a car wash is a part of the proposed gas station, but for purposes of this memo, staff has assumed that a car wash is intended. I' / City Code Sect_ 11. 87, Subd. 2.F., 00, and S., provide the following standards for the requested uses: Gas Stations: 1. shall be screened from any adjacent residential zone; 2. Shall not store any vehicles which are unlicensed and inoperable on the premises, except in appropriately designed and screened storage areas; 3. Shall conduct all repair, assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of vehicles within a building except minor maintenance such as tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement; 4. Shall not have a public address system which is audible from any residential property; 5. Shall provide stacking for gas pumps for at least one car beyond the pump island in each direction in which access can be gained to the pump. The required stacking shall not interfere with internal circulation patterns or with designated parking facilities, and shall not be located in any public right -of -way, private access easement, or within the required parking setback; 6_ Shall not sell, store, or display any used vehicles; and 7. May have a canopy which projects up to ten feet into the required front or rear yard setback. The setback shall be maintained clear of all obstruction up to a height of thirteen feet. The canopy shall have a maximum vertical thickness of three feet. The canopy shall have a maximum height of 18 feet. Prior to approval of the requested CUP, the applicant should provide a site plan specific to the gas station use so that staff can quantify such things as 1) amount and location of parking, 2) amounts and locations of landscaping, 3) location of trash enclosures. For that reason, staff suggests that the Board review the materials presented by staff and the applicant, take any public testimony provided and continue the public hearing to allow time for additional information to be provided to staff to complete this review. The criteria required for the granting of conditional use permits (per City Code Section 11. 85, Subd. 1) are listed below. As a part of eventual approval, the Board will need to consider these criteria, and findings relative to them. 7 Criteria 01 The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the Criteria #5 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The Board may approve the conditional use permit with conditions. Possible conditions recommended by staff include the following; 1. The resolution of approval for this CUP shall not be recorded unless and until the final plat of Shakopee Crossings 1st Addition is approved. Should that not occur, this CUP approval shall be null and void. 2. The subject property shall also be subject to any relevant conditions of approval for the plat of Shakopee Crossings lst Addition and the Shakopee Crossings PUD. 3 _ Drive up or drive through window(s) shall be screened to a height of 6 feet from any adjacent residential zone. 4. Public address systems shall not be audible from any residential property. 5. Drive up or drive through window facilities shall provide stacking for at least six vehicles per aisle. The required stacking shall not interfere with internal circulation patterns or with designated parking facilities, and shall not be located in any public right -of -way, private access easement, or within the required parking setback. 6. Gas station uses shall not store any vehicles that are unlicensed and inoperable on the premises, except in appropriately designed and screened storage areas. 7. Gas station uses shall conduct all repair, assembly,. disassembly, and maintenance of vehicles within a building, except minor maintenance such as tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement. 8. Gas station uses shall not sell, store, or display any used vehicles. 9. Gas station uses may have a canopy which projects up to ten feet into the required front or rear yard setback. The setback shall be maintained clear of all obstruction up to a height of thirteen feet. The canopy shall have a maximum vertical thickness of three feet. The canopy shall have a maximum height of 18 feet. 10. Landscaping on site shall comply with the requirements of the City Code. 11. All on site lighting shall be directed on site (toward the structure, parking areas, etc.) and shall comply with the lighting requirements of the City Code. A lighting plan that complies with the requirements of the City Code must be submitted at the time of Building Permit application. 12. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from view form adjacent properties and existing and planned streets, painted to match or complement the building or incorporated into an architectural design which is aesthetically compatible with the building. 13. Trash compactors shall be fully screened from view. Other trash receptacles, including but not limited to dumpsters, shall be stored in fully enclosed areas, including the top. 14. This conditional use permit (CUP) shall not be effective until such time as the final plat for the property has been recorded with the Scott County Recorders Office. 15. Building materials used on the sides and rear of the building shall be of the same or similar materials and colors as the front of the building. 16. Hazardous waste licenses should be obtained from Scott County Environmental Health, if applicable. 17_ Gas station uses shall provide stacking for gas pumps for at least one car beyond the pump island in each direction in which access can be gained to the pump. The required stacking shall not interfere with internal circulation patterns or with designated parking facilities, and shall not be located in any public right -of -way. 2. The Board may approve the conditional use permit with revised conditions subject to the approval of the final plat of Shakopee Crossings IS` Addition. 3. The Board may deny the request with revised findings. 4. The Board may continue the public hearing for additional information. 5_ The Board may table the request for additional information. /. Staff recommends Alternative No. 4, continuation of the public hearing to allow additional information to be provided by the applicant and to allow any issues related to the Preliminary and Final Plat of Shakopee Crossings I" Addition to be resolved. - / f Offer and pass a motion continuing the public hearing to allow time for the applicant to submit additional information relative to the proposed gas station use. d R. Michael Leek Community Development Director 0J City of Shakopee Memorandum M R. Michael Leek,.Community Development Director Scott A. Smith, Engineering Tech IV SUBJECT: I. 1 -CUP for Fueling Service Station H. 1 -CUP for Outdoor Garden Center III_ 1 -PUD for Shakopee Crossings 1St Addition PID NO.: 27- 912021 -0, 27- 913063 -0 and 27- 912023 -0 DATE: March 27, 2001 The application indicates a proposed commercial retail store, gas station and outdoor garden center within the Shakopee Crossings Ist Addition development_ After reviewing the referenced application, I have the following comments for the applicant, and for the planning department: Background As part of the CUP and PUD process several issues are not addressed regarding the Shakopee Crossings 1 St Addition, but are being addressed in the preliminary plat application process_ These issues include storm water ponds, underground utilities, (Storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain), traffic movement off of County Road 18 into this development, traffic movement off of Southbridge Parkway into this development, traffic movement within this development off of the proposed public streets to the individual commercial lots, street widths ROW widths and easements. Other preliminary plat conditions involve fees to be paid before final plat approval which include: a. Payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges for the entire plat. b. Payment of Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule for the entire plat. C . Payment of Trunk Watermain Charges shall be made, as required by the Shakopee Public Utility Commission. Storm Sewer As part of this application a set of preliminary plans has been given for a proposed Wal- Mart showing the proposed storm sewer layout and how they plan to route all their storm water into a pond. No specific information has been given for storm water discharge from Shakopee Crossings 1' Addition or for the proposed Wal-Mart site, so it is unclear how this will affect the preliminary plat conditions involving storm water management. Recommendation The following recommendations are made before approval: 1. Prior to acceptance of 1 -CUP for Fueling Service Station, 1 -CUP for Outdoor Garden Center and 1 -PUD for Shakopee Crossings I" Addition, all preliminary plat conditions for Shakopee Crossings lst Addition must be met. .a� stafflrev2 14- Mar -01 Review Deadline: 03/28/2001 PC Date: 04 /05/2001 CC Date: Project Manager R. Michael Leek Contact Name: Shakopee Crossings Address: 3601 Minnesota Drive #880 City: Edina State: N2; Zip Code: 55435 - Phone Number: (952) 921 -5806 Fax Number: (612) 832 -0609 Request: 1 - CUP for fueling service station 1 - CT-J for outdoor garden center 1 - PLD Shakopee Crossings 1st Addition Project Location- County Road 18 and Southbridge Parkway Legal Description: See Attached pID ?: 27- 912021 -0,27- 9 13063 - 0,27 - 912023-0 Case Number: 01057 NO TE: If the City does not receive a respow from SPUC relative to water capacity by the noted deadline, the application will not be processed until the response is received. - To be completed by SPUC SPUC's water system has the capacity to Ser ✓e the proposed development: n Yes FARM proposal revkwedbl- Oats IZ,. a Stnte Federl UtiIi Ottaers �( PL-=cr West �12sot¢T� Health , Cat tH"M UU� =,d R – u'i= } Czc ", ®Friar L33ce Ptanrta Q� ®Savage er M- Rv Wtr. of W- &Soil (BWSR) QShakap- WMO acv► ® — S e7's ❑Prat Like WO QT��t`Z f 1 QsLd Creek wai0 Oid Gaya DUB A=Y Caps ofErrgineers QIl« C Fri Q Prate' ion A QISD 120 Trd Mre Community tm Deg�rcnt. City of SblkoPee * P RBIIUIZN T®' 339 S Holmes Stases - - City of Shakopee - Prevention Bureau Staff Review Project Manager: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director Request: PUD Shakopee Crossings 1st Addition ■ for fueling service station • for outdoor garden center Comments and Conditions 1. Comply with Shakopee Fire Prevention Bureau Policies. 2. Fire sprinkler system required. 3. Afire alarm system capable of notifying all occupants shall be provided. 4. Permits are required for fire protection and fire detection systems. 5. A fire hydrant shall be placed within 50 feet of fire department connections. 6. Yard post indicator valves shall be provided for each fire service water line. 7. Water main placement shall be based on Shakopee Public Utilities requirements. 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. 9. Provide emergency vehicle access to site during construction. Access to be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector. 10. Remote garden canter shall be relocated so as not to obstruct Fire Department access to front of structure from Street "A 11. Permits are required for tents, canopies and temporary membrane structures. 12. Temporary structures shall be used for a period of not more than 180 days within a 12 -month period on a single premises and shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. 13. Security. gates or doors within the garden center portion, serving as a means of egress, shall open in the direction of travel. 14. Permits are required for underground storage tanks. 15. Fuel dispensing shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. i j e I I I I I N II 1 11 ` I•I� 1 1 1'I I I I I I L L LLL Ll 111 1 1 1 1 y l l yy-y y y1 11 J 1 11 1� ((( 1 ,, I I I, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1�1 11 •�, �� L IIIllllllllli 11l� . LL 1 1 11 1 1 y1 111 S T R E E T (PUBLIC ROAD BY OTHERS) I I L_ t : is x S E R V I C E q R el � F Y P OIIIIIC � R Sa SE j 91 � a� 1 t 6 as g 1d • n7 �a ?3g EG A , e 4 , , 11 a � I — (A PPfP ii �',ii 0 19 -IIPI IIHII}I __� V p O O � V1 I V1 m r L A 1 O 2 � / O \ q R el � F Y P OIIIIIC � R Sa SE j 91 � a� 1 t 6 as g 1d • n7 �a ?3g EG M ON I Oaf � a e +i tttt+ 1 e 11 ieiii .. — (A PPfP ii �',ii 0 19 -IIPI IIHII}I __� A m m r 1 M ON I Oaf � a e An II e,lll �C'�� Otil , t 11 1 111 1 i ° D R I V E H wl N +i tttt+ 1 e 11 ieiii .. — (A PPfP ii �',ii 0 19 -IIPI IIHII}I __� A m m 1 An II e,lll �C'�� Otil , t 11 1 111 1 i ° D R I V E H wl N I DCRSY LANE i V he \ O K ,tom," ` *• �•- — , , � � 1 e Y J r� 0 a l 8 u 0 i l i ! c I l l I sno I / N M .mry II E 11 ILI JLfa•I ' . �• '±':.• t C` 0 E O r— X80 I® ,tom," ` *• �•- — , , � � 1 e Y J r� 0 a l 8 u 0 SRI i sno G N M JLfa•I ' . �• '±':.• t ,tom," ` *• �•- — , , � � 1 e Y J r� 0 a l 8 u 0 4 � 7 6 B � i� I sno G N M 4 � 7 6 B � i� I m y �f m D r w r O A o� p �Ol C M N _ O � N N O J I V• V• T /T` T fii [Tl �I n � Qz z _I i I I 11 _1 z ql �A F �f �A F A 2 0 n ul r 1 WAIN � Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development SUBJECT: Stratford Village Planned Unit Development ME ETING DATE: May 1, 2001 11 Ryland Homes has made application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval of Stratford Village. The subject site is located south of Southbridge Parkway, west of CSAH 18, and south of CSAH 16. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at its March 8 and 22 meetings. Accompanying this report for the Council's information is a copy of the report that was provided to the Planning Commission for its March 22nd meeting. At the conclusion of that meeting the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4 -2, recommended approval of the PUD to the City Council subject to conditions as presented in the accompanying resolution. 1. Approve Resolution No. 5519, a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development for Stratford Village, subject to conditions as set forth below. 2. Approve Resolution No. 5519, a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development with revised conditions. 3. Do not approve Resolution No. 5519. 4. Table the request for additional information. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: By a vote of 4 -2 the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in Resolution No. 5519. WA 57 _ _ ► �,1 Approve Resolution No. 5519, a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development of Stratford Village with conditions as presented, or with revised conditions. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director 'RINIZI DI a 1 1 * 1 134 110 1513 0 TONS '• N F DWI 1 I FIT WHEREAS, Stratford Village Limited Partnership is the Applicant, and Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership is the Owner of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows as found on Exhibit A, attached: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Planned Unit Development for Stratford Village on March 8 and 22nd, 2001, and has recommended its approval; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing for the Planned Unit Development were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By THE CITY COUNCIIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, NEWNESOTA, as follows: That the Planned Unit Development Stratford Village is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: A. Noise Mitigation: 1. The applicant shall construct a berm with a 4 — 8 foot height along the southeast edge of the project site to mitigate noise from future CSAH 21. 2. Where necessary to meet MPCA nighttime noise standards, the proposed structures shall be climate controlled, and equipped with windows bearing an STC rating of 30. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for any other noise mitigation measures that may be needed as the result of the eventual construction of CSAH 21 or future traffic on Southbridge Parkway. B. Parks /Open Space/Trails; 1. Park dedication shall be in the form of a cash dedication, and shall be due at the time of final plat approval. 2. Landscape islands and common open spaces shall be maintained by the homeowner(s) association(s). 3. The applicant shall work with the City and ISD 720 to locate and develop a pedestrian connection to the adjacent proposed elementary school site. C. Zoning Standards 1. The PUD shall have an overall net density, excluding right -of -way and wetlands, of 9.85 Dwelling Units /Acre. 2. The PUD shall provide at least 2.19 acres of common open space and .87 acres of semi- private open space. 3. Setbacks shall be as shown on the revised Preliminary Site Plan dated March 7, 2001. IMUM PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 0 ; I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 5519, presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 4th day of April, 2000, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of . 2001. Judith S. Cox, City Clerk PUDstratford/W9U r WAIAO �... That part of Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. lying Easterly of Southbridge 1st Addition, Northerly of County Road No. 21 and Southwesterly of Southbridge Parkway. 1� I TO: Shakopee Planning CommissicM FROM: R- Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Stratford Village Planned Unit Development MMETINGDATE: March 22, 2001 APPLICATION DATE: February 8, 2001 Applicant: Ryland Homes Property Owner Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership Exhibits: A — Site Location Ma 0 H — Fire Inspector Comments OR•� • Ryland Biomes has made application for PTJD approval for a townhouse project. The site area is 13.97 acres; total number of proposed dwelling units is 114, yielding a proposed gross density of 9.85 units/acre. The Commission has previously reviewed a concept version of the proposed PUD plan. The request was continued from the March 8"' meeting due to the Commission's scheduled adjournment time. Additional information had been provided by Ryland prior to the meeting, and was on the table for the Commission on March 8 That information is included with this report as well, and the proposed conditions for approval have been amended to reflect the information. The subject property is a part of the land included in the Shakopee Crossings 1 Addition preliminary plat. Review and approval of this plat should be completed prior to Council approval of the PL.TD. Applicant's March 7 letter updating their application states that the site is proposed to have 2.19 acres of common open space. This equals 15.7% of the total site area, slightly above the 15% required under the City's PUD ordinance. That same letter also indicates that there are .87 acres of "semi- private open space." These areas are depicted on the Preliminary Site Plan with a March 7, 2001 revision date. Because of the proposed elementary school adjacent to this site, which is expected to have active play areas, the applicant does not propose the installation of such areas on their site. The revised Preliminary Site Plan also illustrates the proposed setbacks in this project, as compared to the required setbacks in the Medium Density Residential (R -2) and Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zones. The greatest setback variation requested would be along proposed Stratford Circle to allow a 10 foot front yard setback from the right -of -way line. This would result in about a 20 -22 foot setback from the curb. Since the parking is proposed to be located in the rear, this area would not be broken up by driveways.. Proposed parking exceeds the ordinance requirement (i.e. 2 spaces per unit, or 228 spaces). The applicant had a noise study completed by URS (formerly BR W, Inc.). As a result of this study, the applicant proposes the use of 4 — 8 foot berms along the southeast edge of Stratford Village. Where necessary to meet NIPCA standards for nighttime noise levels, the applicant proposes the use of climate- controlled buildings and windows with an STC rating of 30. The following review comments have been received: The City's Fire Inspector has provided comments, which are attached as Exhibit H. These comments can best be addressed with the review of the subsequent plat and budding permits. Alternatives: Recommend approval of the Stratford Village to the City Council subject to the following • • •• 2. Recommend approval of the PUD with revised conditions. 4. Close the public hearing, but table the request for additional information. required 5. Continue the public hearing to allow additional review of the additional information as outlined abo 3 R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g.\boaa-pc\2001\0322\PUDRylancLdoc rl 7 "LAN HOMES 7900 West 78th Street Suite 100 Edina, MN 55439 March 7, 2001 Mr. Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Subject: Update on the Application for "Stratford Village" Dear Mr. Leek: (952)944 -7701 Tel (952)944 -7709 Fax www.ryland.com The intent of this letter is to supply you with the additional information requested in your memorandum to the Shaokopee Planning Commission regarding the application of Stratford Village as we discussed on our March 6, 2001 phone conversation. Ryland Homes understands that approval for the final plat of Shakopee Crossings 1 St Addition by the City Council needs to proceed the council's review of Stratford Village. Having this item listed as a condition of approval at the Planning Commission's level is acceptable at this time. Please find attached to this letter a schedule of site data from William Engelhardt Associates as requested in your memorandum. Within the schedule, the proposed setbacks for Stratford Village are compared with setbacks from R2 and R3 zoning, along with the current setbacks for Southbridge 3" Addition (The Villages of Southbridge). The setbacks are being compared to R -2 zoning since the density of the site meets R -2 requirements. In addition, existing setbacks from Southbridge 3 rd Addition are also shown on the schedule for comparison purposes since this is also a multi - family community within Southbridge. Open space acreage is also listed on the schedule. Stratford Village has 2.19 acres of common open space and .87 acres of semi- private open space. Per our phone conversation, the 2.19 acres (15.7% of the total area) of common open space does meet the required 15% of open space for a PUD application. In my February 7, 2001 letter, the stated 3 acres included both common open space and semi - private open space. A site plan by William Engelhardt Associates highlighting both the setback areas and open spaces has also been generated and is attached to this letter, as requested per our phone conversation. From the noise study completed by URS (formally BRW Inc.) the anticipated peak noise from CSAH 21 will be 71 decibels by the year 2020. URS concluded that a three -foot minim height earth berm would reduce noise levels to below the 70- decibels required by the existing City's ordinance. A copy of URS's report was attached to the original submittal. Specifically, Ryland Homes will mitigate the noise down 3 to 7 decibels using four to eight foot high earth berms along to southeast edge of Stratford Village. These berms are currently shown on the preliminary grading plan. In addition, following Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recommendations for nighttime mitigation, the buildings will be climate controlled (each unit will have an air condition) and the windows will have an STC rating of 30. Heavy landscaping is also planned for the berm to help visually screen future CSAH 21. If additional information is required on any of these issues or any other issues pertaining to the Stratford Village submittal please don't hesitate to call me at (952) 944- 7701. Sincerely, Mar onstegard Land Resources Coordinator Ryland Homes ►I o J J QI e; o �b� 6 • 'J ra 0 z U 0 CL n. W N o z f— W LU S N o W U �� •^� 11 1 Q dt'F09 FS'ALAd Z 2 1 R 0 S 00 at < -_ - - - - - — — — — --- - - - - -- _� x ® if T _ \ \� \ \\�� \`-.•_ - - -- bS Af6 =b' ZS'SZCC W d G s 6 ' J 11 / \` � / �' \\ \\ • \� ' \�'., lIi III / o J J QI \ \ l e; o �b� 6 • 'J ra 0 z U 0 CL n. W N o z f— W LU S N o W U �� •^� 11 1 Q a Q Z 2 1 R v6� � at < x ® O .n b b W d G s 6 ' J to \ \ l J ,.y U m / �/ / � rYl�p�✓AI�Iy� {l�l z AV �G V � \ �JP � 01 gr �•i / e3 n4 t I> 6 av, a v1 Y�,.��� �' VA V ,' ,�z1 iI CC�? o d(Y � yrwT tr) {> rt 1'1 � \ •' \\ \\ A A vji el /, / 13 ,� � � dA� fr 1 f {1, j � —_ ;. t. ,sil �y ' � 1 1 � \ S', \•\ \\ �\ \ ¢�� �6�`r}• ~ ^t ln \ G C -j � ei tlt {'�TY�`I� �IFI:f ..� �' .,. �: ; , ,U�� 1 \ \ \\ O \ W o a nm �O A O E�i h O � h W � ppp p U OI� 0 . W w V) 9 0 R i q6 z 0 UGb N VO Q W pla V U i w o rr 4kt3 � N w Ux ti y � C7 Hit D Ld Z � L L, z W Caa a�� 3 ~ U N 1 J ,.y U m / �/ / � rYl�p�✓AI�Iy� {l�l z AV �G V � \ �JP � 01 gr �•i / e3 n4 t I> 6 av, a v1 Y�,.��� �' VA V ,' ,�z1 iI CC�? o d(Y � yrwT tr) {> rt 1'1 � \ •' \\ \\ A A vji el /, / 13 ,� � � dA� fr 1 f {1, j � —_ ;. t. ,sil �y ' � 1 1 � \ S', \•\ \\ �\ \ ¢�� �6�`r}• ~ ^t ln \ G C -j � ei tlt {'�TY�`I� �IFI:f ..� �' .,. �: ; , ,U�� 1 \ \ \\ O \ W o a nm �O A O E�i h O � h W � ppp p U OI� 0 . W w V) 9 0 R i q6 z 0 UGb N VO Q W pla V U i w o rr 4kt3 � N w Ux ti y � C7 Hit D Ld Z � L L, z W Caa a�� s .o, r. o 0 m Z o 0 w I N gal r Lrl 1 1 11 1 ,1 v 10 - u.no Nolllaad Hit 30018eHMOS ` . e CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for Shakopee Valley Marketplace MEETING DATE: May 1, 2001 Discussion KTJ Limited Liability Partnership Fifty has made application for approval of an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of Shakopee Valley Marketplace. The subject site is located north of 17 Avenue and east of County Road 17. The applicant recently received approval for a Conditional Use Permit on Lot 5 to allow a 12, 000 square foot "strip retail" building, which would be located directly west of the entrance to the retail center off 17 Avenue. The applicant is requesting approval of the placement of signage along the rear (east) wall of this proposed structure, consistent with the size requirements of the B -1 Highway Business Zone. The main entrance to this building will be from the west. The Zoning Ordinance allows signage on the front of a building or on a side of the building which faces a public street or has a public entrance. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at its April 19th meeting. Please find attached, for the Council's reference, a copy of the April 19th memorandum to the Planning Commission. At this meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD amendment to the City Council by a 6 to 1 vote, subject to conditions. Alternatives 1. Approve Resolution No. 5520, a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Shakopee Valley Marketplace, subject to conditions as set forth below. 2. Approve Resolution No. 5520, a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development Amendment with revised conditions. 3. Do not approve Resolution No. 5520. 4. Table the request for additional information. Action Requested Approve Resolution No. 5520, a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Shakopee Valley Marketplace with conditions. G : \CC\2001 \CC \0501\PUDAM SVM.DOC (0 1060) �' RESOLUTION NO. I, :: �, TF rI : :: : �, VALLEY MARKETPLACE WHEREAS, KTJ Limited Liability Partnership Fifty is the Applicant and Owner of said property; and WHERE the applicant has requested an amendment to the PUD to allow wall signage along the rear of the structure on Lot 5; and WHERE the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Shakopee Valley Marketplace, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHERE the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Shakopee Valley Marketplace on April 19, 2001, and has recommended its approval; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing for the Planned Unit Development Amendment were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY C OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the Amendment to Planned Unit Development 917 Shakopee Valley Marketplace is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Wall signage shall be allowed on the rear of the building on Lot 5 only. 2. The size of wall signage shall be consistent with the regulations outlined in Section 11.70, Subd. 10. (A) (2), which state that tenants be allowed up to one (1) square foot per linear foot of the building wall on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 100 square feet per tenant on a side of the building other than the front. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of 11 Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 I, Judith S_ Cox, City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 5520, presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 1 st day of May, 2001, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of 7 2001. Judith S. Cox, City Clerk 6 TO Shakopee Planning Commission Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Amendment to Retail Center Planned Unit Development (P ) Site information: .,, Partnership V�roperty Owner: KTJ Limited Liability Partnership Fifty Location: Southeast comer of Highway 169 and County Road 17; north of 17th Avenue Current Zoning: Highway Business (B -1) Zone Adjacent Zoning. North: Highway 169 South: Office Business (B -2) Zone/PUD Overlay #6 (St. Francis Hospital) West: County Road 17 East: Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Zone 1995 Comp Plan: Commercial MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map Exhibit B: Applicant Letter Exhibit C: Site Plan C NS ONS° This PUD amendment • application requests approval of the placement of signage along the rear building wall of the structure on Lot 5. The developer recently received approval for a CUP on Lot 5 to allow a "strip retail" building directly west of the entrance to the center off 17 Avenue. Currently, City Code regulates wall signage located on the "on the front of a building" and "not on the front of a building". Specifically, Section 11.70, Subd. 10. states: A. Wall Signs. 1. On the front of a building. Wall signs on the front of a building shall not exceed two (2) square feet for each linear foot of the building wall on which the sign is mounted, up to a maximum of 200 square feet. Business complexes shall be allowed two (2) square feet for each linear foot of the building wall on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 200 square feet per tenant on the front of the building. The front of the building is the wall with the main entrance. 2. Not on the front of a building. Wall mounted signs on building walls other than the front if that wall faces a street or there is an entrance on the side of the building. These signs may have one (1) square foot for each linear foot of the building wall on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 100 square feet. Business complexes shall be allowed one (1) square foot per linear foot of the building wall on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 100 square feet per tenant on a side of the building other than the front. Given those regulations, wall signage would be allowed on the front of the building (wall with the main entrance). It is the applicant's intent to place signage on the rear building wall (the building wall which faces the driveway off 17` Avenue). However, the language in the code would not allow signage on that wall since it does not face a public street nor does it provide an entrance for customers wishing to enter the business. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a PUD amendment to allow signage along the rear wall of the building, consistent with the size requirements outlined above. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval of the PUD amendment request, staff provides the following draft conditions of approval for the Commission's consideration. 1. Wall signage shall be allowed on the rear of the building on Lot 5 only. 2. The size of wall signage shall be in conformance with the regulations outlined in Section 11.70, Subd. 10. (A) (2). A S° 1. Offer a motion • to recommend approval of the PUD amendment, subject to the conditions presented, to the City Council. 2. Offer a motion to recommend approval of the PUD amendment, subject to revised conditions, to the City Council. 3. Offer a motion to recommend denial of the PUD amendment to the City Council. 4. Continue the public hearing for additional information. 5. Table the request for additional information. g: \boas pc\2001 \0419\pudsbkvly.doc C `l H 4 ° r N N W E S March 12, 2001 - Mr. Mark Noble - City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South ` Shakopee, MN 55379 _ RE: r Shakopee Valley Marketplace Shakopee, MN Dear Mark: In conjunction with the attached Application, this letter- shall serve as a narrative for the application. As discussed, this amendment is to allow only the occupants of the multi- tenant building on Lot 5 to place signs on the rear of the building. Currently, the occupants may only have signs if the elevation faces a public roadway or a public entrance. It was our belief that the entryway off of 17` Avenue constituted a public entrance and this entry point will handle a large amount of traffic. It would be our intention that these signs would fall under the current city ordinance allowing 1 square foot of signage for each lineal foot of wall area to a maximum of 100 square feet. This request is only for Lot 5 and would be similar to the for the sign on the rear of Lot 4. We feel that this P T t and the proposed signage is consistent with the city requirements and zoning and are within the parameters of the overall development. They will not have any impact on any adjoining residential property and will allow for better viability of the occupants. As always, we are more than willing to discuss any item(s) that you made need more clarification one and look forward to working with the city staff and Commission on this project. Sincerely, Paul J. T i ATTACHMENTS: ® Narrative \ 0 Application & Fees tot" -M 001f "M . •1"0 •Tq CWTV -- wTT ---- oN - wm —3LY0 999 1 939 )03HO 001 013>031-0 rqm-cez ( 9tMg Nn 1 1 — "IM OH' WY Ot P-8 A13 :Z:q __ . �,_ 0 .... � p Ow 03HOIS3a \ // , -3 P SNOISLI138 on 113WIS NY1d 316 T1Y1MO mw ioti ON l�D Oa Nn '33d0�I.6 III 3SVHd — 33V_1d13A8VN L/L I A311VA 33d0NVHS I 'Mm 7 Ali NI— I I i I !! I I i i I I I I i ;: I i I ! U 0 E6 4 t C Ra" O L, C) 0 4 a7 0 L% R Li 0 JAB2tIIS NIZV"dVS (wOCK V 0649C V MEM T ISZSC L; Ti �S C i ?' [, �' ( i� I� f i!! I, � I I i i I! I r! i i �.. + +: ' t E i f f l( I l� l l l i i l� i l I ��, i i l�, ! i i!!. !.1 n 1 I; I i 1 itl 1_i i 1 i I i t I " F p s - ! - r' J 74A , t ddjjiil!'IIII!!iii!il!�ii�.j --;� t >� _�.� � J i L !I " 11li �!ili di Wil WM _Lj -4 - TFFU \J_1 I I '0 o LLLL J _ ---------- ------ - ------------ - -------------- tu o tn o it 0 CO 1 :1 w " 11 U. o 1- 'In 7 o 00 ,uj .1� _j U_ � tn 00 v ,0 � ON it Q W " 01 C-1 1 LINN., I 11 � ON it Q W " 01 1 LINN., I 11 CL V, "N 0 cl � ON it Q W " 01 1 li NI if I so. aW Q d Q 11 II II II II II 9 II it II II II 11 11 II II 11 II II II II II II II II II II II II � II II II II II II � I�"I 1) 11 II II II II II it it 11 II I) � II II b II II (fir A � I I 11 I I 11 v 0 i II II II II II II II II I II II II II II II II II II � IC II 11 ii I I II m _ II II II b II II it - II II � II �11 II II RII 211 11 II II it II II it II II II 4 II II fl II II II II II II II � II II II II II II � a II II II II II II I I b � II II 1I- I I - - II� II II II � LU � II II II II . r � II w I I J II w I I J Ef From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director Date: 25 April, 2001 Subject: Community Center Use Policy Updates Amending Fee Policy to Include Non - Resident Community Center Rates INTRODUCTION This winter, there was an increase in guest behavior issues at the Community Center. The purpose of this memo is to present plans to address these issues and propose the implementation of a non - resident Community Center admission fee. BACKGROUND Defining the Issue Since the opening of the Community Center in 1996, our use has steadily increased. This increased use has brought in a diverse user group, to whom we provide a variety of services. For example, individuals use the Community Center for fitness, recreation, sports association or school athletic practices, a warm up area for the arena, and sometimes simply as a place to "hang out ". With the variety of users, we will at times have behavior issues, as we experienced this winter. However, clear policies will help us address and control inappropriate behavior. In addition to the variety of guests and types of use, there are other factors that contributed to the issues we experienced this winter, including, but not limited to: • The lack of clearly defined use policies. • The lack of a follow -up process for guests who display behavior issues. • Level of supervision and consistency in enforcing policies. • Clear direction on who "manages" the facility, both in regards to full -time and part- time staff. • Consensus on the desire for the Community Center to server as a facility for youth to "hang out ", and provision of adequate space for this activity. • Significant behavior issues from non - resident youth. RECOMMENDATION Proposed Solutions In addition to discussing these issues with our part-time building supervisor staff, we also consulted with other Community Centers to determine what policies they have in place to address behavior issues. Eased on this research, we are proposing several steps, some of which have already been implemented, as indicated by a *. 1. Establish clearly defined use policies. Although the Community Center has some use policies, they are not clearly defined. The following policies would be posted in prevalent locations throughout the facility, and distributed to members and guests. Community Center Proposed Use Policies Age Requirements • Children 8 and younger must be under the direct supervision of an adult 16 or over • Youth 15 and younger are not permitted to use the cardio or fitness equipment. • Youth 15 and younger must be under the direct supervision of an adult 16 or over when on the walking track. 2. Use Policies • Food or drink (except water) is not permitted on the lower level. • No street shoes, roller blades, skate boards, or skate shoes permitted. ■ Shirts and shoes must be worn at all times. ■ No kicking balls or throwing balls up to the running track. • No rough play, wrestling, or pushing. • No hanging on hoops. • No dribbling balls on stairs, in hallways, or lobby area. • Full -court basketball is permitted on the east gym only during schedule use times, or at staff discretion. Full court basketball is not permitted on the west gym. 3. Staff Responsibilities in Enforcing Policies • Staff will immediately address behavior in violation of Community Center policies. • Staff will use good judgment. If the behavior is a serious violation not covered under the zero - tolerance policy, immediate expulsion may be required. If the behavior is minor in nature a verbal warning shall be issued. Expulsion will follow i the same party repeats the behavior. • Staff will use fairness, equity, and professionalism when addressing behavior issues. Our goal is to correct the behavior and encourage participants to enjoy the Community Center in a safe and respectful manner. 2. Establish a "Zero- Tolerance" policy. A Zero - Tolerance policy will identify behavior that will result in immediate expulsion from the facility. Once expelled, full -time staff would determine what follow -up would be needed, including possible extension of the expulsion. This policy would also be clearly posted throughout the facility. Proposed Zero - Tolerance Policy The respect and safety and of our guests and staff is required from all facility users. Shakopee Community Center will not tolerate certain behavior. Guests who conduct behavior outlined below will be immediately expelled from the facility: • Fighting • Profanity • Alcohol, tobacco, or substance use. • Rowdy, disruptive, or disrespectful behavior ■ Theft or vandalism ■ Gang signing /wearing of colors ■ Possession or use of weapons of any kind ■ Behavior that requires a second warning ■ Verbal abuse of patrons or staff If a guest is expelled for the above behavior, Shakopee Parks and Recreation will review the incident and determine if an extended expulsion is warranted. The length of any such expulsion is the sole decision of Shakop Park and Recreation. 3. Develop a follow -up program for behavior issues. Once a behavior issue incident occurs, we need to have a follow -up program. This could be a simple modification of our current incident report to indicate what follow - up action is needed, and designating what steps staff should take 4. Make Adjustments to Part -Time Staffing ■ Restructure Part-Time Staffing Currently, there are two building supervisors on duty during evening and weekend shifts. However, these two individuals "share" responsibility for the overall supervision of the facility. We believe that this has, at times, created some confusion on who is actually responsible for the facility. We should consider differentiating between a Building Supervisor and a Service Desk Attendant. The Building Supervisor would have overall responsibility for the facility, while the Service Desk Attendant would primarily be responsible for guest check -in, program registration, and general information. *Training In order to ensure that staff is adequately trained to effectively and consistently enforce Community Center policies, as well as to provide good customer service, we need to provide a more comprehensive training program. This may include training on gang awareness, how to handle disrespect issues, customer service skills, etc. We are working with the Police Department to coordinate aspects of this training. ■ End -Of -Shift Form We will be implementing an end -of -shift form to help improve the exchange of information between full and part-time staff. 5. *Work Closely with the Police Department As behavior issues occur, we need to work closely with the Police Department, both in reporting behavior issues, and meeting with Police Department representatives to be aware of issues that are occurring throughout the community that might impact the Community Center. 6. *Provide Radios for Staff Provide two -way radios for building staff and arena staff to improve communication throughout the facility. 7. Implement Non - Resident Fees for Community Center Use Currently, a non - resident pays the same fee as a resident. However, the most significant behavior incidents in the Community Center this winter involved non- residents. A non- resident fee may discourage use from non - residents who have caused incidents. The following is our proposed non - resident rates. A comparison of Mhcr fmrilihi nnn- resident rates is ;3 t2ched. 1. Age 2 and under are free. Resident Rate Proposed Non- Resident Rate Daily Admission — Adult, Age 16 to 59 $3 $5 Daily Admission — Youth', Age 3 to 15 $2 $4 Daily Admission : : -- Senior, Age 60+ $2 $ Walking Track Free Free Family Membership $110 $150 Adult Membership: Age 16 to 59 $70 $100 Youth Membership: Age 3 to 15 $50 $75 Senior Membership: 60+ $50 $75 1. Age 2 and under are free. RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board unanimously recommended implementation of these steps at their April 23, 2001 regular meeting. If City Council concurs with implementing a fee for non - residents, we would suggest that this take effect on June 1. This will provide us with adequate time to notify users and establish procedures for verifying residency. REQUESTED ACTION City Council is asked to consider the updates to the Community Center operational policies as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and provide further direction to staff, if so inclined. In addition, if City Council concurs, move to approve Resolution Number 5524 Amending the 2001 Fee Schedule. Mark Themig Facilities and Recreation Director RESOLUTION NO. 5524 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 5461: 2001 FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council desires to designate a non - resident fee for Shakopee Community Center admission and memberships, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the 2001 Fee Schedule is amended to include: Community Center Fees Memberships and Admissions Resident Rate Non - Resident Rate Daily Admission — Adult, Age 16 to 59 $3 $5 Daily Admission —Youth , Age 3 to 15 $2 $4 Daily Admission — Senior, Age 60 and over $2 $4 Walking Track Free Free Family Membership (Immediate family residing at same address) $110 $150 Adult Membership: Age 16 to 59 $70 $100 Youth Membership: Age 3 to 15 $50 $75 Senior Membership: 60 and over $50 $75 1. Age 2 and under are free. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall become effective from and after June 1, 2001. Adopted in Shakopee, Minnesota held this session of the City Council of the City of day of May, 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Shakopee Parks . • Recreation Shakopee Community Center Proposed Rate Changes Memberships and Admissions Resident Rate Proposed Non - Resident Rate Daily Admission — Adult, Age 16 to 59 $3 $5 Daily Admission — Youth , Age 3 to 15 $2 $4 Daily Admission — Senior, Age 60 and over $2 $4 Walking Track Free Free 0 Gymnasium Family Membership (Immediate family residing at same address) $110 $150 Adult Membership: Age 16 to 59 $70 $100 Youth Membership: Age 3 to 15 $50 $75 Senior Membership: 60 and over $50 $75 1. Age 2 and under are tree. Community Center Rate Comparison (2000 Rates) s s e- - i• e - •e Shakopee Annual Pass Annual Pass 0 Gymnasium 0 Cardio and strength equipment Family $110 Family $110 • Walking track Adult $70 Adult $70 0 Ice arena Youth /Senior $50 Youth /Senior $50 1999 Memberships • 212 Family Daily Fees Daily Fees 0 99 Adult • 72 Youth /Senior Adult $3 Adult $3 Youth /Senior $2 Youth /Senior $2 1999 Use Numbers • 21,407 walking track • 20,175 member uses • 4,290 adult daily • 7,213 youth daily • 8 punch card Chaska e ates AnnualPass Non-Resid Annual Pass e Indoor pool ® Gymnasium Family $242 Family - $385 • Cardio and strength equipment Adult $149 Adult $231 • Ice arena Y outh/Senior $103 Youth /Senior $163 Daily Fees Daily Fees dult $3.00 Adult $5.25 outh /Senior $2.50 Youth /Senior $4.25 Eli • • Chanhassen Resid Daily Fees $1.50 • e Daily Fee $2.00 ln �i6 d es Gymnasium ® Cardio and strength equipment • Gymnasium • Walking track ° Indoor play equipment • Cardio and strength equipment 1999 Memberships • 600 -800 Family 0 1000 Individual 1999 Use Numbers • 46,401 member • 4,065 adult daily • 40,370 youth daily 0 Indoor waterpark ° Cardio & strength equipment ° Gymnasium • Walking track • Concessions 1999 Memberships • 550 Annual • 1050 Seasonal 1999 Use Numbers 100,000 member uses ® 200,000 daily Punchcard Punchcard New Brighton 10/$20; 20/$38; 40/$72 Resident Rates Annual Pass 10/$15; 20/$28; 40/$52 e Annual Pass Family $275 Family $375 A dult $165 Adult $275 Y outh/Senior $95 Youth /Senior $120 Seasonal (3 mo.) Seasonal (3 mo.) Family $95 Family $125 A dult $55 Adult $95 outh /Senior $35 Youth /Senior $40 Daily Fees Daily Fees W alkers Only $2 Walkers Only $2 A dult $4.50 Adult $4.50 Y outh/Senior $4 Youth /Senior $4 :777 Shoreview Resident Rates AnnualPass Non Annual Pass Family $415 Family $550 A dult $240 Adult $325 Y outh/Senior $180 Youth /Senior $240 Seasonal (3 mo.) Seasonal (3 mo.) Family $140 Family $180 A dult $80 Adult $110 Y outh/Senior $60 Youth /Senior $80 Daily Daily Family $13 Family $16 A dult $5.00 Adult $6.50 Y outh/Senior $4 Youth /Senior $5.50 Resi dentRates e e' t Rates Maple Grove AnnuallPass Annual Pass Indoor pool Indoor playground Family $300 Family $400 • Ice arena Adult $160 Adult $200 Gymnasium Youth/Senior $140 Youth /Senior $160 Concessions Coupon Book $63 Coupon Book $63 Daily Fees Daily Fees Family $20 Family $25 Adult $8 Adult $10 outh /Senior $7 Rates Youth /Senior $8 Dakotah! Membership Initiation Fee Monthly Fee Indoor pool • Gymnasium Individual $199 Individual $33 Cardio and strength equipment Couple $249 Adult $51.50 Ice arena Family $299 Family $70 No daily Fees 11 =" CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director Date: 25 April, 2001 Subject: Shakopee Skate Park Operational Policies and Proposed Fees INTRODUCTION In approving the skate park concept plan on April 3, 2001, the City Council directed staff to research and develop policies for the operation of the skate park, including the installation of fencing, hours of operation, supervision, and fees. The following information outlines proposals for each of these areas. BACKGROUND In response to possible concerns about behavior issues at the skate park, City Council directed staff to further define the operational policies of the skate park prior to construction. Several issues were raised that were not addressed in the concept plan. Staff met with representatives from the Youth Skate Park Committee to discuss these concerns, and came up several recommendations. These recommendations were presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board at their April 23, 2001 meeting for consideration. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Facility Policies The following policies are proposed: • Helmet, knee pads, elbow pads, and wrist guards are strongly recommended. Know your ability and skate with care. • Skateboards and in -line skating only. No bicycles, razors, motorized vehicles, or other wheeled devices allowed on the pad or equipment. • The park is designed for all skill levels. Be courteous to skaters with different skating abilities. • Don't litter. Help keep the park clean. • No food or drink in the skating area. No use of tobacco products. • No amplified music. • No equipment may be brought into the facility. ■ No skating when raining, or when the equipment or skating surface is wet. • No pets in the park. • Competitive or demonstration events are only allowed with permission from Shakopee Parks and Recreation Department. ■ This facility is not supervised. Shakopee Parks and Recreation assumes no liability for loss, damage or any kind of injury or accident to people or property. Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on facility policies: Adopt the use policies as proposed. Fencing Fencing will provide some level of security, as well as more clearly differentiate when the facility is closed for use. In addition, fencing can be used to control use during specified times (nights, during the winter months, etc.) However, fencing also clearly differentiates it from our other park play facilities. After consulting with Public Works and other cities with skate parks, we would recommend a rubber coated (black or green) heavy gauge fence, 6' high, with a 12' gate for access. Fencing will cost approximately $8,500. Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on fencing: The Advisory Board had considerable discussion on the merits of fencing the site as it was being built, verses waiting until after the park is open to see if there are issues that would require fencing. Based on City Council comments at the April 3 meeting, as well as further comments from a resident who was in attendance at the Advisory Board meeting, the Advisory Board concurred and recommended that fencing be installed at time of construction. However, they asked staff to bring back costs for 4' high fencing as an alternative. This information will be presented to the Advisory Board in May along with the bid information. Supervision /Hours of Operation /Fees The hours of operation, level of supervision and charging of fees are interrelated, due to the need to monitor the site and collect proposed fees. Staff and the Youth Skate Park Committee discussed several options for each of these, and provided the following recommendations. However, once the park is open, we will be monitoring activity closely and will implement changes as needed. Supervision Since the skate park will be a Tier 1 skate park, it does not require on -site supervision. Therefore, the initial proposal submitted to City Council indicated that the Community Center and Parks and Recreation staff would provide general supervision of the site. However, there was direction from City Council to more clearly define supervision. Two options have been identified for providing supervision: 1. Employ a skate park attendant for the site. 2. Use Community Center and Parks and Recreation staff to provide supervision. Based on the requirements for a Tier 1 park, the challenges with recruiting and retraining qualified staff, and discussion with other cities, we believe that we can provide adequate supervision and address behavior issues by using our existing Community Center and Parks and Recreation staff. In addition to monitoring the surveillance camera, we would also use periodic spot checks on the site to identify and address any issues. Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on Supervision: The Advisory Board recommended that we use existing Community Center and Parks and Recreation staff to supervise the site. Hours of aeration The hours of operation for the skate park and the Community Center are closely tied to the issue of supervision, if Community Center personnel are involved in providing supervision. The following are proposed hours of operation: Day Summer Spring /Fall Graffiti Skate Park, Stillwater Skate Park Current Comm Ctr. Skate Park Comm. Ctr Monday- Friday 9:OOa -9:OOp 6:30a -9:OOp 9:OOa -8:OOp 6:OOa- 10:OOp Saturday 9:OOa -8:OOp 8:OOa- 5:OOp* 9:OOa -8:OOp 8:OOa -8:OOp Sunday Noon -8:OOp Closed* Noon -8:OOp 8:OOa -8:OOp *Historically, the Community Center has reduced the hours of operation during the summer, primarily due to decreased use. There are four options to consider during these times: 1. Employ a skate park attendant. Community Center would be closed. 2. Staff and open the Community Center — Limited Service (upper level only). 3. Staff and open the Community Center — Full Service. 4. Use a combination of Community Center and Ice Arena staff and facilities (when available). If access to the Community Center support facilities is a goal, a combination of #3 and #4 would be needed. Furthermore, opening the Community Center would provide an additional day of service to members and guests. However, this could have a financial impact as much as $3,400 for additional (unbudgeted) staffing costs. Charging a non - resident fee, as discussed below, would offset some of these costs. In addition, we may achieve some savings by combining staffing resources with the arena, but the actual savings will depend on the amount of ice rented during the summer. Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on Hours of Operation: The Advisory Board recommended that we adopt the proposed operating schedule. In order to provide supervision and access to the Community Center during all hours the skate park is open, the Advisory Board also recommended modifying the Community Center hours on Saturdays and Sundays, using the revenue from non - resident fees to offset these costs. Fees Primarily only Tier 2 skate parks charge fees. However, seemed to be significant interest from City Council at their April 3, 2001 meeting to charge a non - resident fee. Based on a brief survey, we found the following fees being charged: Name Level Daily Admission Graffiti Skate Park, Stillwater Tier 1 $3.00 4.8 Skate Park, Winona Tier 1 $3 Res, $4 Non -Res Sweet Roll Skate Park, Shoreview Tier 1 $2 Youth, $3 Adult Roseville Aggressive, Roseville Tier 2 $6.00 3" Lair, Minneapolis Tier 2 $10/$12 Maple Grove Skate Park Tier 2 $7 Burnsville Skate Park Tier 2 $13 Taking into account the relative size of the proposed park, the Youth Skate Park Committee felt a fee of $5 for non - residents would be appropriate. Admission would be collected at the Community Center service desk. Each skater would be issued a wristband, which could be easily checked. In order to simplify the process for residents, we could issue a "resident card ", which would need to be presented for free admission. (Once our computerized membership management system approved in the 2001 Operating Budget is implemented later this summer, all resident information would become computerized. A combination of spot checks by staff, assistance from the Shakopee Skate Park Committee representatives, and self - policing by the users could all be used to help monitor payment. Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on Fees: The Advisory Board recommended that we adopt a $5 non - resident fee for the skate park. Residents of Shakopee would be free. The Advisory Board also discussed the possibility of a season pass, but agreed to wait until after the first season of operation. REQUESTED ACTION City Council is asked to consider the Skate Park operational policies as recommended by the Youth Skate Park Committee, the parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and staff, and provide further direction, if so inclined. In addition, if City Council concurs, move to Resolution Number 5525 Amending the 2001 Fee Schedule. Mark Themig Facilities and Recreation Director RESOLUTION NO. 5525 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 5461: THE 2001 FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council desires to designate a non - resident fee for use of the Shakopee Skate Park, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the 2001 Fee Schedule is amended to include: Shakopee Skate Park Daily Admission Residents Free Non - Residents $5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall become effective on the date of completion of the skate park. Adopted in Shakopee, Minnesota held this session of the City Council of the City of day of May, 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk os.c.l. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Final Plat of Pheasant Run 8"' Addition MEETING DATE: May 1, 2001 Introduction: Pheasant Run of Shakopee, L.L.C. has made application for final plat approval of Pheasant Run 8"' Addition. The preliminary plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 17, 2000, and approved by the City Council on September 5, 2000. Considerations: The final plat is generally consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The proposed plat encompasses 203 acres and consists of 29 buildable lots and one outlot. Shakopee Public Utilities has commented that since this 8 Addition is the final phase of the Pheasant Run development, there is a requirement to install a 12 -inch water main along Valley View Road (the entire frontage of all previous Valley View frontage of Pheasant Run Development). They also commented that Well No. 11 construction has been completed and that there should be a 20 -foot easement between Lot 7 and Lot 8, Block 1, and between Lot 14 and Lot 15, Block 1. City Engineering has provided comments (see attached Memorandum), which have been incorporated in the Resolution. The Building Department has commented that temporary and well- secured road signs identifying the street name are required for inspections/ emergency vehicles. Alternatives: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5502, approving the final plat of Pheasant Run 8"' Addition subject to the proposed conditions. 2. Approve Resolution No. 5502, approving the final plat of Pheasant Run 8 Addition subject to revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the proposed final plat of Pheasant Run 8` Addition. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. Action Requested: GXC \2001 \Cc0501\Fppheasant8th.doc (0 1065) 1mrsil 11, b III 1 I W W4 OW 0 W :I 1 1 1 WHEREAS, Pheasant Run of Shakopee, L.L.C., applicant and property owners, have made application for final plat approval of Pheasant Run 8th Addition; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: All of Outlot A, Pheasant Run Sixth Addition, Scott County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat on August 17, 2000; and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission has recommended approval subject to the conditions listed below; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the final plat request at its meeting of May 1, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED BY :I. COUNCIL OF :.1 OF SHAKOPEE, MJNNESOTA, as follows: That the final plat of PHEASANT RUN 8TH ADDITION is approved subject to the following conditions: I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for security for the future improvements within the final plat, as well as payment of engineering review fees. 1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. C. Payment of trunk storm water charges, trunk sanitary sewer charges, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. D. The developer shall provide a deed for the 6 acre park dedication. E. There should be a 20 -foot easement between Lot 7 and Lot 8, Block 1, and between Lot 14 and Lot 15, Block 1. H. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply: A. Prior to construction of the public improvements, the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission must approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. B. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). C. Installation of a 12 -inch water main along Valley View Road, for the entire frontage of all previous Valley View frontage of Pheasant Run Development. D. The developer will provide temporary and well- secured street signs as approved by the Building Official and Fire Inspector. E. Hydrants shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, the policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC), and shall be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the final plat of PHEASANT RUN 8TH ADDITION does not constitute a representation or guarantee by the City of Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of water service that will be available to lots within the plat as they are developed. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee 0 Zoning Boundary Parcel Boundary W- + . s C m City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mark Noble, Planner I FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Final Plat — Pheasant Run 8"' Addition DATE: April 10, 2001 After reviewing the above referenced application, I have the following comments for the applicant, and for the planning department: Recommendation Recommend approval of the Final Plat, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to recording of the Final Plat, the following actions must be completed: 1_ Execution of the Developers Agreement, which shall include provisions for security for the public improvements within the Final Plat and engineering review fees; and 2. Payment of the Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. B. Prior to construction of the public improvements, the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission must approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. - -- 656.20 S89 °59'57 "E - -- - { 1 z >m mcm m mo nD mo =NE m -A ig� C) �0 m NOm r 0 A o o ' o { m (z2 mm�N z f+l� �ZIn =O T� z z< c o Zx O _ O P _ - -� p g -z aNZ(7= N = __� Nns 2f'1 O to Ni Z��DD Z C v �C zc 1�+1 � mpp� g 1c: r. z C D C = Z D O m W z D z - 1 I �I _ O - ri o C D O r S n v O - I•-10 � M J _ y9 1 �I ' I > cNr N i,"I, N ol^OV - L - - -- -�- OC 1> Ozpm '>' i - --- - v C7 m z J 1> r�• r - 7 1 1 0 . =N W _ y CA ;n ? / D> - 7 c L C_ - 7 \ / ` 0', G _ - 1 I �I _ O o / C D O r S n I O z r� � m � to � I•-10 � M y9 1 t+la ' I > cNr N i,"I, N ol^OV - L - - -- -�- OC 1> Ozpm '>' i - --- - v C7 z o m S O C7 J r m2m 1 1 0 . =N W CA ? / D> - 7 c L \ / ` 0', < 0 o 4� / i/ L _ \ \ A ' S i tJ O " 87.98 , 762.39 e^ 7 i 7 G /\ ' I 1 1 a v x c: 3? J r ? / D> - 7 c L \ / ` 0', < C 4� / i/ L _ \ \ A ' S i tJ O " 87.98 , 762.39 r 0 7 i 7 G /\ c / J G <� Cn \ \ 1 t � I w L4 OD � I I I v m i I g I j I I — J L - - -- L - - - -+� �4-3a• i i 0 I O I J 16 0.00 • V -P s ° � o Q y oO �C iIS I,S� R '/ oqA�• -- p 80.00 1 $ Ie L- N Nla &• + p6 i 11 zf r - -- - -- I I -8 , 3 1.3e I - -L- -s �\ 30 - I - I P. _r• Iq 30 30 30 �I 18�I �•- % IS ��--- _ "e9•sfl•2o•w __J $ v GJ to $I 09_s I m l I$ 1 IP > L - _ N9_2C _ J L 18939_20 J � / - L_ - 189'39_20 W_ _ J N tSobb — 1 r 136.0 N U I I I r --- - - — - l r i5a.o3 - - - 1 ® I I 1 / 7 I I ®81 N I I I z NI N. 611 Ln i I N ly 81 s :I 18 L___ I Is > I 4 1 I ND ( --- , - 39 - 3s r - - --I I 1 . L _ - N8959 _ • J L _ - ILI 59_20_W _ J J Y s - - 130.00 - -- -- - tom �o — - -� 81 I CA r - - 130.00 - - -- ) ® I I I 1 ® I N89 I I'8 PI W I P I •P IP L -- •s9'2 0•w _J _ I s m I I II al I J0 30 1 b 30 1 . l ,30.00 130.00 Oy,LC.Gt_ - -J 1 - - -- - --I L- -- - - -J IL _•� Sr't9t MA R O AD Is L__ N89'S9.20•w 320 342.83 189 �eLt �yt"a An 75M 14.3.67 f ` 9G�i -, r es.9aa ^I r— - l - - - - � r — . `7' Y .v '�,�' +.cz• to I I' I I I I I I I 15 pp I all I I I I A � �u . ,, � ; � - _ rie9�sa' _ _ j ._1_I 8Sw 0�' -4- 139 _ t, 8 --- �s___ 1 uI I $I_ f 1#5;� I I Is¢ a ? Iu W FS1 sotr —. I i6 —s 8j N RI it .1 IS I I °�'r °+as�•_� - �I IT 18 _ G 'I I kd I I" I I� I L _ _ Ne9 59 20 w — _ �\ : f ; ewyo I� r- -- - - --I; tl ; E_ j _N89•s9'201W - - --� J - I 432.35 I I I I I I 1, 1 X •INS - - -- _J L � I I I r� ---- u9., I }5 / 1 0 t ^ i7 1t n.00 z �K ds• 8 1 . ►. L - -.a / 152.72 55.15 N89 °56'17 "E / l q _ �¢*3> Is - So i - yb - ' - •�°�' v C 1 otd I ly i / \ N84°06'55"E [ L _ _ _ �•�_ _ _ J 30. 30.00 $ / 190.90 Go o m S89 ° 59 20 "EI ® 589 9 0 "E 4�o N 0 o ill Ir - ^AKI L)I I ^Ivy ��I \ /TI 1 jn $SI Ar r� 1 rl n N - 7 I �lL_/'\.:/ - \IV I I\vly ..I /\► �l I�? r\LJVI I lUly m I TI 1 1'S I ^TR LE- f $ 9 I Go I ' 75.00 " 87.98 , 762.39 C" ' I I )�I I K• I I I w L4 OD � I I I v m i I g I j I I — J L - - -- L - - - -+� �4-3a• i i 0 I O I J 16 0.00 • V -P s ° � o Q y oO �C iIS I,S� R '/ oqA�• -- p 80.00 1 $ Ie L- N Nla &• + p6 i 11 zf r - -- - -- I I -8 , 3 1.3e I - -L- -s �\ 30 - I - I P. _r• Iq 30 30 30 �I 18�I �•- % IS ��--- _ "e9•sfl•2o•w __J $ v GJ to $I 09_s I m l I$ 1 IP > L - _ N9_2C _ J L 18939_20 J � / - L_ - 189'39_20 W_ _ J N tSobb — 1 r 136.0 N U I I I r --- - - — - l r i5a.o3 - - - 1 ® I I 1 / 7 I I ®81 N I I I z NI N. 611 Ln i I N ly 81 s :I 18 L___ I Is > I 4 1 I ND ( --- , - 39 - 3s r - - --I I 1 . L _ - N8959 _ • J L _ - ILI 59_20_W _ J J Y s - - 130.00 - -- -- - tom �o — - -� 81 I CA r - - 130.00 - - -- ) ® I I I 1 ® I N89 I I'8 PI W I P I •P IP L -- •s9'2 0•w _J _ I s m I I II al I J0 30 1 b 30 1 . l ,30.00 130.00 Oy,LC.Gt_ - -J 1 - - -- - --I L- -- - - -J IL _•� Sr't9t MA R O AD Is L__ N89'S9.20•w 320 342.83 189 �eLt �yt"a An 75M 14.3.67 f ` 9G�i -, r es.9aa ^I r— - l - - - - � r — . `7' Y .v '�,�' +.cz• to I I' I I I I I I I 15 pp I all I I I I A � �u . ,, � ; � - _ rie9�sa' _ _ j ._1_I 8Sw 0�' -4- 139 _ t, 8 --- �s___ 1 uI I $I_ f 1#5;� I I Is¢ a ? Iu W FS1 sotr —. I i6 —s 8j N RI it .1 IS I I °�'r °+as�•_� - �I IT 18 _ G 'I I kd I I" I I� I L _ _ Ne9 59 20 w — _ �\ : f ; ewyo I� r- -- - - --I; tl ; E_ j _N89•s9'201W - - --� J - I 432.35 I I I I I I 1, 1 X •INS - - -- _J L � I I I r� ---- u9., I }5 / 1 0 t ^ i7 1t n.00 z �K ds• 8 1 . ►. L - -.a / 152.72 55.15 N89 °56'17 "E / l q _ �¢*3> Is - So i - yb - ' - •�°�' v C 1 otd I ly i / \ N84°06'55"E [ L _ _ _ �•�_ _ _ J 30. 30.00 $ / 190.90 Go o m S89 ° 59 20 "EI ® 589 9 0 "E 4�o N 0 o ill Ir - ^AKI L)I I ^Ivy ��I \ /TI 1 jn $SI Ar r� 1 rl n N - 7 I �lL_/'\.:/ - \IV I I\vly ..I /\► �l I�? r\LJVI I lUly m I TI 1 1'S I ^TR LE- f $ 9 I Go I ' J�5'. C. Z CITY OF S HAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Final plat of A.C.C. ADDITION ME ETING DATE: May 1, 2001 �,s t Associated Capital Corp. has made application for approval of the final plat of A.C.C. ADDITION. The proposed plat is located west of CSAH 17 and south of Weston Ponds. On April 17, 2001 the City Council approved the preliminary plat of ACC Addition with conditions. As relevant these conditions are incorporated into the accompanying resolution of approval for the final plat. 1. Approve Resolution No. 5521, a resolution approving the final plat of A.C.C. ADDITION subject to the conditions contained therein; 2. Approve Resolution No. 5521 with revised conditions. 3. Deny the requested final plat, and direct staff to prepare a resolution consistent with that action. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. 1 Approve Resolution No. 5521, a resolution approving the final plat of A.C.C. ADDITION subject to the conditions contained therein; R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g:\cc\2001\0501\FPACCADDITION.doc N W E SHAK ®PEE con2.faamYF=SMM189 g Bound Zoning - Parce Boun 17 e I]� ❑0❑ ® ❑ ❑® ®®® 2R St. r cis Ave cs v AG AG die T i N W E SHAK ®PEE con2.faamYF=SMM189 g Bound Zoning - Parce Boun i FINAL OF ADDITION WHEREAS, Associated Capital Corporation, applicants and property owners have made application for final plat approval of A.C.C. ADDITION; and WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as found on Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission conducted the required public hearing on the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission has recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and approved, subject to revised conditions, the preliminary plat at its meeting of April 17, 2001; and WHEREAS, the proposed final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED By THE COUNCIL OF :I OF : i 1' MINNESOTA, follows: That the final plat of A.C.C. ADDITION is approved subject to the following conditions; I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the final plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. 0 B. The dedication language should be revised to read "lanes" and "roads" as there are two (2) of each. C. The plat shall be revised to include the twenty (20) foot easements between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1. D. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. 1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Installation of streets, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. The installation of streets shall include a temporary cul de sac at the intersection of proposed Evergreen Lane and future extension of Valley View Road. 5. An agreement between the applicant and Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be required regarding completion of the water main system. 6. Installation of a sidewalk on the public street within this subdivision, said sidewalk to connect to the sidewalk on Weston Lane to the north. 7. The developer shall be responsible for payment of engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 8. Park dedication may be deferred to the issuance of individual building permits in this development. If deferred, the park dedication due shall be payable at the rate called for in the then - current City Fee Schedule. H. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply; A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). B. Further development to the south will not be permitted without a second access to the development project. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the final plat of ACC ADDITION does not constitute a representation or guarantee by the City of Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of water service that will be available to lots within the plat as they are developed. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appropriate City officials are hereby authorized to execute a developers agreement for this plat. 3 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of 1 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk EI The West 340.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter Section 18, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. The East 90.00 feet of the North 200.00 feet of the West 430.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 18, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. The West 340.00 feet of the North 460.05 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter Section 18, Township 115, Range 22,Scott County, Minnesota. 0 m 7 V, 1I m �. i Y 6 4 A s n tr1 a a C3• n aNUjjjjj x �O O '- z � C _I y s u � D ®_ D ® n ® m n U 2 0 r- VI C-) O D >{ V N � � - i I A �P z ; � z /.� N y i 1 n sr r s win: frr s Sse. re. r y. 116. R" 22 FIELD LINE \ \\ 4 ` as. l L ---J 1 4 ` t L. -J ; \;\ / ;I m I -k > OLI. - AD 846.6 X — Y L / LJ %•' — U � q I •I I v I /x I O L. -- Ej I L = B4y.9 -- J-j r-r _ ---17 11l �\ X 846.2 L_ = —c JJ % I L_L-- -�J _ 37 1; i f• i 4 x 845.8 l i•.: IM — J { X 845.1 I I 1 I I m 1 I I N I X 115.4 O r L L_ JJi o __ r. _�� l e {`. r�— —�•� � ✓rte W 845.7 845.0 X L — = JJ 1 I �L - - -JJ ' • � - =ice ! it r =ice LL - - -JJ �' \ --rte OAD EXTENSIOrI .— - -••`•' \ 834.9 J X 8341 •� 1 '\ �\ ��. - -,� t ,\ ,_ swa...r cmmr d ure soulnwef / ' � �,. '� �.,�`.. l •..., ^" LINE gluts d m. Nartn.mr Qbsd.k -� x e]s.s ,Ik6' r x \1 X e3e.4 � � I I 834.4 / 34.4 x 833.3 / 19837.3 I 4 x 803.1 \ N X 833.5 1 `v + \ x 839.4 \• \ +' \ \ \ V \\ \ 841.0 04 N" Oro —% ' r_ X 834.8 \•\ x d1 WL Nk 1/V \ .f 1h SE 114 FIELD LINE \ `„ X 336.6 \\ \\ 'I \ \. e6 f12s \ 1 / 4 \ I \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ l l l�l I / � 1 1 / j �/ ! i // � / /� _ \ \�.= =iii %\ \ \ / / � \ 1 ♦\``\�� `�\ \X '.�\ 8663 — N g a�aa- u•.. >3 ����� � � � � � , I I I I -- # _ I I I I a ao N___����J���uay n �k aa�IWNaaNaaaaaaa � rEQm rP U> o sv�m m mue —v r�e oT - 3m 3 ° 4 N r ; n o Sm z z >g � N vt�� �7Cy . R« W F S �wN>nQ r Q $ T Q �aT a N +A��mz> y a >q c wNUtiwwwNwww u° a c 8 Y Y 8 I � > I ;o z I m o a� ZC > O NN f+t� j;' r .m ° gam VC H 'b y Q + = Q P t � y !''i QFI ,1.1• y L'. F 91 W > tp : u CA A CA Z �E8�85�885 L' rrr��'iDj PP{{ FI !n Z 1 aaaaaaaaaaa to �> z u Pi N /5aC•3. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Final Plat of Garden Lane Addition MEETING DATE: May 1, 2001 Introduction: f Daniel Brewer has made application for a final plat for Garden Lane Addition. The preliminary plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its February 8, 2001 meeting and the City Council approved the preliminary plat at its March 20, 2001 meeting. The plat consists of four (4) lots, one encompassing the six (6) existing four -plex structures, one encompassing the proposed 48 unit apartment structure and two proposed outlots. There will also be the creation of a public street/ cul- de -sac (Garden Lane). Considerations: The final plat is generally consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The applicant has addressed several issues raised by County Engineering and City Engineering that were conditions of the approved resolution for the preliminary plat. Numerous comments have been received regarding this project, several of which have been listed below: 1. City Engineering has required an easement around the pond on Lot 1, which the developer has added to the final plat. 2. Scott County Engineering has provided a letter with six (6) comments that is attached for the Council's information. Those comments have been included in the resolution. 3. The Shakopee Fire Inspector has provided a memorandum listing 14 comments and conditions, which is also attached for the Council's information. Those comments have been included in the resolution. A question concerning Outlot B was raised by several review agencies. The concern was that there appeared to be a good chance that the outlot could become tax forfeit and should be combined with another parcel. The owner and engineering consultant have assured staff that this will not occur for two reasons: 1) the developer intends to place a sign for the apartment complex on this outlot which would not be allowed if they dad not own the property, and 2) the developer is required to retain that parcel to ensure compliance with the density requirement of the property. The developer has shown on the plat Outlot A, which will serve as open space. The developer may install recreational or play features on this parcel. The developer has shown 12 additional parking spaces on Lot 1, which would increase the number of spaces from 96 to 108. These additional spaces are shown only as proof of availability, and would not initially be required to be constructed. If it is determined by the City that additional parking is required, the developer will have those 12 spaces constructed. Park dedication fees will be collected for this development. The amount to be collected will be $1500.00 per unit (48 new units) for a total payment of $72, 000.00. This park dedication fee has been modified from the initial estimate as further research has noted that the six (6) original four plex apartments did have a park dedication fee collected at the time of building permit issuance. Alternatives: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5522, approving the final plat of Garden Lane Addition subject to the proposed conditions; 2. Approve Resolution No. 5522, approving the final plat of Garden Lane Addition subject to revised conditions_ 3. Do not approve the proposed final plat of Garden Lane Addition. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. Action Requested: g:\ commdev \cc\2001 \Cc050l\fpgardenln.doe ((01069) Al � II 1 ��.1 Wes N 01 1 10 W W 103 U DICE W4 W41 U 1111 Lv jkz� WHEREAS, Daniel S. Brewer, applicant, and James Vandergriend, general partner ofBVC Partnership, L.L.P., property owners, have made application for final plat approval of Garden Lane Addition; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as shown on Exhibit #1; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat on February 8, 2001; and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent; and WHERE the Shakopee Planning Commission has recommended approval subject to the conditions listed below; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the final plat request at its meeting of May 1, 2001. N OW , THEREFORE BE 1 1 BY C1 COUNCIL OF :1 OF SHAKOPEE, MU*4NESOTA, as follows: That the final plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION is approved subject to the following conditions: I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Delete signature block for Planning Commission Chairperson_ C. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for security for the public improvements within the final plat, and for the payment of engineering review fees and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. 1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4_ Installation of private sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of $1,500.00 per unit, ($72,000.00 total) and shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 6. The City shall require a landscaping bond at the time of building permit application in an amount equal to 115% of the value of the landscaping materials to insure completion of the landscaping. 7. The developer shall be responsible for payment of security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 8. Street signs shall be installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost of $270 per each sign pole. 9. Outlot A is designated as open space which could be utilized for recreational or playground purposes. 10. Provide fencing as proposed, in lieu of berm, along west property line. 11. Provide a security system as proposed. 12_ Proof of parking for 12 additional spaces, to be available for future construction if deemed necessary by the City of Shakopee. H. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply: A. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City requirements and are subject to approval by City Engineer. Such plans as they relate to water or electricity are subject to the approval of the SPUC Utilities Manager. B. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). This will include a building code analysis by a registered architect/engineer. C. Hydrants shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, the policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC), and shall be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector. D. The developer will provide temporary street signs as approved by the Building Official and Fire Inspector. E. No signing, berming or landscaping shall be located in the County right -of -way or County easement. F. An access permit shall be required for the modification of Garden Lane. G. A utility permit shall be required for any work within the County right -of -way. H. Any change in stormwater entering the County right -of -way shall require detailed stormwater calculations to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval. I. Outlot B shows a 10 foot easement along the east side of the outlot. This easement should be identified as highway easement. J. Outlot B's maintenance and ownership responsibility is tied to the apartment development, to ensure that this Outlot not become tax forfeit. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER SOLVED, that approval of the final plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION does not constitute a representation or guarantee by the City of Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of water service that will be available to lots within the plat as they are developed. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of 1 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee 0 • Rck 11 0 14r- M • 1'` File Number. I -16322 Parcel A: That part of Lot 7, plat of Nehls Addition to Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, lying North and West of the following described line: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 7, thence Southeasterly along the East line of said Lot 7, a distance of 27.40 feet, thence Northwesterly and parallel with the North line of said Lot 7, a distance of 149.34 feet; thence Southerly to the Northwest Comer of Lot 6, plat of Nehls Addition to Shakopee, the same being the South line of said Lot 7, and there terminating. Torrens Certificate Number. 18161 Parcel B: All that part of the abandoned right -of -way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company in the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 115, Range 22, "n Westerly f the centerline of County Road No. 17 and Easterly of the West line of said South Half of Southeast Quarter, the centerline of the track of said right -of -way being shown in Scott County Recorder's Document No. 179992. Abstract. BRADLEY J.LARSON PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/ COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER April 23, 2001 Mark Noble City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Subject: Final Plat, Garden Lane Apartments CSAH 17 and Garden Lane Dear Mark: We have reviewed the final plat and offer the following comments: Fax: (952) 496 -8365 ♦ Outlot B shows a 10 foot easement along the east side of the outlot. This easement should be identified as highway easement. e Outlot B's maintenance and ownership responsibility should be tied to the apartment development. The County does not want the possibility of Outlot B to become tax forfeit in the future. ® An access permit shall be required for the modification of Garden Lane. ♦ A utility permit shall be required for any work within the County right -of -way. ♦ Any change in stormwater entering the County right -of -way shall require detailed stormwater calculations to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval. s No signing, berming, or landscaping shall be located in the County right -of -way or County easement. Thank you for the opportunity to review this final plat. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Planner An Equal Opportunity /Safety Aware Employer City of Shakopee Fire Prevention Bureau Project Manager: Mark Noble From: Tom Pitschneider, Fire Inspector Date: 04/20/2001 Request: Final Plat of Garden Lane Apartments Comments and Conditions 1. Comply with Shakopee Fire Prevention Bureau Policies. 2. Fire sprinkler system required. 3. Attic areas shall be provided with fire sprinkler systems. 4. Dry sidewall fire sprinklers shall be placed on the exterior balconies /patios of all units. 5. Dry sidewall fire sprinklers shall be placed to provide fire protection for tuck -under garage areas. 6. Fire Department standpipes shall be placed in all stairways. 7. Permits are required for fire protection and fire detection systems. 8. Fire sprinkler exemptions for small rooms as defined in NFPA 13 shall not apply to bathrooms or walk -in closets. 9. Fire hydrants shall be placed within 50 feet of fire department connections. 10. Yard post indicator valves shall be provided for each fire service water line. 11. Water main and hydrant placement shall be based on Shakopee Public Utilities requirements and shall be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector. 12. A fire alarm system capable of notifying all occupants shall be provided. 13. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 902. 14. Provide emergency vehicle access to site during construction. Access to be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector. I WEST LINE OF LOT 7 NEHL'S ADD. TO SHAKOPE MINNESOTA ANDI THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 6, TWP.775, RNG. 1 N00 °39'31 "E �. 577.72 524.80 NOOb9'30 "E 1 11 I t➢i1o� 1 I CAI � I I o m Z 2 � O O O nD + O z O m v ZZ - o C $ 1 � m Z N I I N z N\ I (m I O I I y m w wo I 8i I I I y Oe 6 I;, V, F, I 0 UTIL DRAINAGE k TY , ' ° I L__ __EASEMENT _ - -,` P - + I I I 1100'06'07 W V 1 — 1 - = A oo 1 1 ` 141.68 I _ —\ NOOb6'07 W N�'40 n I o 0 I \ y ���7�. 0' 39'34 "E _ Y 7° • ` �� N0 l I C ` `` 80.00 0 17.22 13 i mom I /f caW 4 Fb .a-�O ILl _ \ly ,i 9 1 '/ 5�4 ,i' '•� I o 'mOm � \� 11_00'39'31 �O 9261_ —_ m✓ �� - 57.39 �_ � 0'00 _� � SO1'ST04 "E 97.72 _ y. a I 126.6 '30 "W 3 N1031 ' 3 5"E�j 6 3_ 23 - LT.,Q1 - ••• I i I \� NO2'30 PERFDOT EL cm, /\ S O SO ° - --- j —�— — — - I 16 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC, NO. 125591 11.00 m 57.48 •/'/ 26 .75 D p S03 °0Q'3 "E .6_ / m w OUTLOT B o o / y gg'6*6 I s � 1S y3 � "61SL CO U ROAD XO 17 _909. L =11 =3 33 0 D I, - F -WA916 &EM42977 P ER p, 142 Otl Doc. 11 T I $ S I a I • - OC, NO • 18954 EA t➢i1o� 1 I CAI � m O O O nD + O z O m v ZZ - o C $ 1 � m Z N � r N N N m I I ( Naia v 01 -1 I I y Oe 6 I;, V, F, I 0 /L ° /\ S O SO ° - --- j —�— — — - I 16 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC, NO. 125591 11.00 m 57.48 •/'/ 26 .75 D p S03 °0Q'3 "E .6_ / m w OUTLOT B o o / y gg'6*6 I s � 1S y3 � "61SL CO U ROAD XO 17 _909. L =11 =3 33 0 D I, - F -WA916 &EM42977 P ER p, 142 Otl Doc. 11 T I $ S DO Zn -v t➢i1o� � ��_ O O O nD + O z O m v ZZ - o C $ 1 � m Z N � r N N N m -I Sf)G)O� Dm v 01 -1 0 /L ° m2 - L,8m 00c: ,wz _1 I Z 5 C >l = A oo C) O ;u n I o 0 o <mmCm O m p o Zm0 On -+ ZZ_ < m _— _____ —__ —_ 0 0 '7ZDmZ 0 �v C) $ f Z +1 j D Z N S Lt ON Nm� mON N -u Ia40. oOmmz QZtn N- > N O --I .� CT a S 9 om m N2 Q 1. xx 3 x� It ic IR Z, a T i \ I � o �� � i i 8 � ' J �- L o M CONC* P 710 LL (T11 EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING 0 0 m 6 7 L, e "0 J? > z +5 ""ERWI o 0 21 Cf) VA Qa zip l t�i CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum fm Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Julie Klima, Planner II Set Public Hearing for Vacation of Easement within Canterbury Park 1st Addition MEETING DATE: May 1, 2001 R.J. Ryan Construction Company, on behalf of Quality Forklift has submitted an application for vacation of easement within Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park 1"' Addition. The attached Resolution No. 5523 sets a public hearing date to consider the vacation of easements within Canterbury Park I' Addition. DISCUSSION The attached resolution sets a public hearing for June 5, 2001. On that date, comments from staff members and utilities, as well as a recommendation from the Planning Commission, will be presented to the City Council for consideration. MAI1 IIH&JIM Offer Resolution No. 5523, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of Easement within Canterbury Park I" Addition, and move its adoption. Jude Klima Planner II gAcc\2001 \cc0501 Wacsetphglty&khft. doc 11 i I :1, • I 1 . 1 " � WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that portions of easement within Canterbury Park l'` Addition, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, serves no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held before an action to vacate can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. WHEREAS, two weeks published notice will be given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice will be given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, the bulletin board at the U.S. Post Office, the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Library, and the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, ME that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 5 day of June, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, on the matter of vacating portions of easement within Canterbury Park l' Addition, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee F.V 0 ,119 I t SHAKOPEE C0NWUNnYPR W SASS! Proposed Vacation of Easement i Parcel Boundary IS, o- I - CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consider Ordering Plans and Specifications for C.R. 83 /C.R. 16 Improvement, Project No. 2001 -4 DATE: May 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5526, a resolution ordering plans and specifications for the C.R. 83 /C.R. 16 improvements, Project No. 2001 -4. BACKGROUND: A public hearing was held on this project on March 20, 2001 with the City Council providing direction to staff on additional alternatives and proposed additional right -of- way for C.R. 16. On April 3, 2001, those additional reports were presented to City Council and accepted, with Alternative No. 2 being the recommended alternative for the realignment of C.R. 16 with 17 Avenue. On April 24, 2001, the Scott County Board voted to accept the C.R. 16 /C.R. 83 feasibility report with Alternative No. 2 being the recommended alternative for the realignment of C.R. 16. Also, the County Board voted to begin a corridor study on C.R. 16 from C.R. 83 to T.H. 13. The County Board directed staff to begin preparation of a Memo of Understanding (MOM for jurisdictional transfer of 17 Avenue, from C.R. 79 to C.R. 83 from the City of Shakopee to Scott County; and for C.R. 16, from C.R. 17 to C.R. 83 to be transferred from Scott County to the City of Shakopee. Also, the County Board directed staff to begin preparation of a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Shakopee for the proposed upgrade of C.R. 83 and C.R. 16 as presented in the feasibility report. Attached to this memo is a draft MOU as prepared by Scott County. This MOU is for the jurisdictional transfer of 17 Avenue from the City to the County and for the existing C.R. 16; from C.R. 17 to C.R. 83 to be transferred from the County to the City once 17 Avenue is totally constructed, from C.R. 79 to C.R. 83. This MOU is being placed before the City Council for review and comment. Staff's has only a couple of comments on the MOU and will present those at the council meeting. Previously staff had presented a memo outlining the steps that were needed in order to order a public improvement proi ect and they are as follows: 1. Petition and waiver of assessment appeal by the developer of Valley Green Corporate Center. 2. Public hearing for the plat of Valley Green Corporate Center. 3. A MOU between the City of Shakopee and Scott County on jurisdictional transfer of 17 Avenue and C.R. 16. 4. A Cooperative Agreement between the City of Shakopee and Scott County on cost participation of C.R. 83 and C.R. 16 improvements. 5. Public hearing for C.R. 83 /C.R. 16 improvements. Item No. 1 - The developer of Valley Green Corporate Center has submitted a petition and waiver of assessment appeal for this project. This petition was accepted by City Council and is a valid petition for the project to be initiated by a petition basis. Item No. 2 — The developer has submitted a plat for Valley Green Corporate Center and the public hearing has been continued until the status of the roadway improvements are known. In essence, the roadway improvement project needs to be approved in order for a Valley Green Corporate plat to move forward. Item No. 3 & No. 4 — On the MOU between the City and the County on jurisdictional transfer, staff would propose to bring this back to Council at a later date, once the MOU is finalized between the County and City staff. Within this MOU is a paragraph that the City and the County would enter into a Cooperative Agreement, prior to the award of the construction contract, which would outline the responsibilities of each party for the construction project including cost participation. Item No. 5 — The public hearing for this project has already been conducted on March 20, 2001. One additional item that needs to be included in the resolution ordering the project, which is also included in the MOU between the City and the County, and that is for the City to receive Mn/DOT approval of the proposed design concept. A statement within Resolution No. 5526 would be added to include this. Staff has a meeting scheduled with MnDOT and Scott County on Monday to discuss the proposal and should have an indication from MnDOT for Tuesday's Council Meeting. Staff believes that in order resolve the plat of Valley Green Corporate Center, the improvement project for C.R. 83 and C.R. 16 must be resolved. Staff has included a contingency for Mn/DOT approval with the ordering of the plans and specifications for this project. However, this resolution will allow the project to move forward for the plat of Valley Green Corporate Center to be considered and for the City to move forward with Scott County on a MOU and to ask for Mn/DOT approval of this project. If the City Council does not want to adopt Resolution No. 5526 at this time, it should give the Planning Commission if this project is acceptable and direction to proceed with the plat consideration. The City Attorney will be able to respond to any questions in regards to right of way acquisition for this project. Also attached to this memo is an extension agreement from WSB & Associates, Inc. on the design engineering services that would be needed for this project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5526, a resolution ordering the improvement and the preparation of plans and specifications for CSAH 83, from 12 to 1870 feet south of the existing intersection of CSAH 16; and for CSAH 16, from 850 feet west of CSAH 83 to 1500 feet east of CSAH 83. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5526; this action will halt the project until such time as the City Council reconsiders the resolution. 3. Table Resolution No. 5526, to allow time for staff to prepare additional information as directed by City Council such as Mn/DOT approval or approval of the MOU. 4. Authorize staff to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for design engineering services as necessary for this project. 5. Provide staff direction on the preparation of the MOU with Scott County on jurisdictional transfer of 17 Avenue, from the City to the County and C.R. 16 from the County to the City. RECOMMENDATION: If the City Council desires to proceed with this project at this time, then Resolution No. 5526 needs to be adopted, a resolution ordering the project and the preparation of plans and specifications. Staff believes the resolution contains the necessary contingency that is needed in order for the project to move forward, such as MN/DOT approval. If Council is not comfortable with the County's draft MOU, then tabling this action on the resolution is the appropriate action. Staff will be meeting with Mn/DOT on Monday, April 30, 2001 to discuss their review of the project and will report to Council the results of that meeting. Staff also recommends that an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for design engineering services as necessary be executed for the design of this project. Staff also recommends that the Council provide direction on the MOU between the City and the County regarding juristictional transfer of C.R. 16, from C.R. 17 to C.R. 83 and for 17 Avenue, from C.R. 79 to C.R. 83. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 5526, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to 1870 Feet South of the Existing Intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 Feet West of County State Aid Highway 83 to 1500 Feet East of County State Aid Highway 83, Project No. 2001 -4 and move its adoption. 2. Authorize staff to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for survey preparation of easements and design engineering services as necessary for this project. 3. Provide staff direction on the preparation of the Memo of Understanding with Scott County on the jurisdictional transfer of C.R. 16, from C.R. 17 to C.R. 83 and for 17 Avenue, from C.R. 79 to C.R. 83. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL /pmp MEM5526 This memorandum of understanding is entered into by the City of Shakopee (City) and Scott County (County) on , 2001. WHEREAS, the City has prepared a feasibility study for CSAH 83/16 area, dated February 20, 2001; and WHEREAS, the feasibility study reviewed several alternatives for the realignment of CSAH 16 and 17 Avenue as it would intersect CSAH 83; and WHEREAS, the City and County have had public meetings with the residents and property owners adjacent to CSAH 83 and CSAH 16; and WHEREAS, the City and County have agreed that the alignment extending the new east -west minor arterial highway along 17 ffi Avenue alignment (north of Shakopee Gravel) would provide the best operational characteristics for CSAH 83 and the new minor arterial (CSAH 16/17' Avenue); and WHEREAS, the City and County have agreed that the construction of CSAH 83, 16 and this east - west minor arterial will be completed in phases. The first phase to include the upgrading of existing CSAH 83 and the realignment of existing CSAH 16 both east and west of CSAH 83. The next phases would be the extension of the east -west minor arterial (17 Avenue /CSAH 16) to CSAH 83, as shown on the attached drawings; and WHEREAS, the City and County desire to document their respective understandings regarding certain aspects of the proposed alignment, proposed project, future jurisdictional changes and the timing of these items. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY UNDERSTOOD THAT: 1. CSAH 83/16 Upgrade Project A. The City of Shakopee will be the lead agency in the development of all plans and specifications. The County will review and approve such plans and specifications. The Plans shall also be submitted for State Aid approval. B. The City of Shakopee will identify and describe in legal terms for easement purposes the required permanent and temporary right -of -way required. • The City will through its platting process acquire through dedications all permanent and temporary right -of -way from the Valley Green properties abutting this project. • The County in coordination with the City shall have the identified right -of -way needs appraised and acquire such through negotiations and/or eminent domain proceedings. • Upon completion of the project the right -of -way of current CSAH 16 that will no longer be used for highway purposes will be transferred to the underlying fee /property owner. However, the County /City will retain an easement for any public utility remaining in said right -of -way. C. The County will enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the City prior to award of construction contract that will specify the rules and responsibilities of each parry for the construction project. • Such Cooperative Agreement will include a detailed cost estimate for the project and a breakdown of the costs by responsible parties. • The County agrees to participate in the project based on the final construction costs attributed to the County. Preliminary estimates have the County share at $62,550 for right -of -way acquisition and $997,108 for construction costs for a total County commitment of $1,059,658. D. The City/Developer shall have satisfied and received approval from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. E. The City and County acknowledge that, as the jurisdictional authority for CSAH 83 and CSAH 16, the County retains the right to make any and all determinations on traffic control and access along these two highways. F. The City as part of the Developer's Agreement with Valley Green will require a traffic analysis of CSAH 83 as a condition of each proposed stage of development. To assure that the proposed and existing traffic conditions do not exceed Level of Service (LOS) D/E at any of the intersections /segments on CSAH 83 from new CSAH 16 through the Shakopee Bypass interchange intersections. Should the LOS exceed LOS D/E the City shall not approve the development unless the City/Developer can through additional transportation improvements, reduction in development or by other means bring the LOS into compliance. The City or its assigns shall be responsible for the cost of the traffic analysis and any measures needed to mitigate the LOS. Any proposed work within the County Highway R/W shall be approved by the County. 2. East -West Minor Arterial A. The East -West Minor Arterial from approximately 3 /4 mile east of CSAH 17 to CSAH 83 will be constructed at such time that one or more of the following occur: • Development of the property east of CSAH 17 to the Shakopee Gravel property. • The City and County agree that traffic conditions indicate a safety problem exists or is imminent at the CSAH 83 and CSAH 16 intersections, or adjoining segments. Such problems may be apparent through excessive delays to traffic on CSAH 16 and/or CSAH 83 or through crash problems in this area. Three years from the completion of the CSAH 83/16 project. B. The City will be responsible for development of all plans and specifications for the east -west Minor Arterial road extension to CSAH 83. The County will review and approve such plans and specifications. C. Upon completion of 17 Avenue to CSAH 83, the County will assume jurisdiction of 17 Avenue from CR 79 to CSAH 83. In addition, the City will assume jurisdiction of CSAH 16 from CSAH 17 to CSAH 83. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Mayor i Chair, County Board Dated: 2001 Dated: 1 2001 w: \word\mou\shakopee - 83 -16 -17th ave.doc April 3, 2001 Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. Public Works Director /City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 -1376 Re: Estimate of Cost to Provide Engineering Services CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction WSB Project No. 1281 -00 Dear Mr. Loney: According to our Agreement for Professional Services within the City of Shakopee and Section I -C -2 (Major Projects), this extension agreement is written to provide you with an estimate of cost for engineering services for the above - referenced project. We are proposing to complete the work as detailed on the attached scope of services, Exhibit AA @. The attached work plan describes the approach and tasks proposed to be completed by WSB. It should be noted that the work plan includes engineering design for roadway plans, storm sewer plans, sanitary sewer plans and watermain plans. Payment of services would be completed by the following schedule: Roadway Design $258,350 Trunk Storm Sewer & Oversizmg Design $49,590 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Design $17,220 Watermain Design $32,700 Total $357,860 It is proposed that all work under the contract would be considered complete after the preconstruction conference. The construction management phase would be initiated after the preconstruction conference. We are available to begin work plan as soon as authorized by the City, and we anticipate to complete the prof ect according to the following schedule, assuming that we receive the notice to proceed on April 3, 2001. CAWINDOWSUEMP \040301 BL.DOC Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. Shakopee, MN April 3, 2001 Page 2 We would propose to complete the project according to a tentative schedule noted as follows: Publichearing .................................................................... ............................... March 20, 2001 Orderplans and specs ............................................................ ............................... April 3, 2001 Receive plans and specs / Order ad for bid ............................ .......................November 6, 2001 Receivebids ................................................................. ............................... December 12, 2001 Awardcontract ............................................................. ............................... December 18, 2001 Beginconstruction ................................................................ ............................... January, 2002 Substantial construction completion ........................................... ............................... Fall, 2002 The City of Shakopee agrees to reimburse WSB & Associates for these services in accordance with Section IV of the Agreement for Professional Services. If this agreement meets with your approval, please sign below and return one copy to our office. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Bret A. Weiss, P.E. President City Administrator City Clerk Mayor Date CAWWDOWSUEM2\040301 BL.DOC 1 1 City of Shakopee, NIN WSB Project No. 1281 -00 M , Project Management This task includes planning and coordination of all work tasks, establishment and monitoring of budgets, and correspondence with the City of Shakopee on a periodic basis. The project manager will provide technical direction on all aspects of the project, review all work products, and prepare monthly progress reports. The project manager will serve a primary role in the many design considerations. $ Data Collection Available data will be collected from the City, Scott County, Nh /DOT, private utility companies, and adjacent developers as necessary, to prepare the construction documents. Soils Report Soils information will be used from previous construction, adjacent developers, and the Feasibility Report. $ Construction Plan/Bidding Documents The construction plans/bidding documents phase includes the bulk of our effort on the project. some of the activities associated with this phase and included in the project fee are as follows: Description of the Project It is our understanding that the project, as outlined in the feasibility report, includes the following activities: - Surface improvements including all street- related issues on CSAH 83. - Surface improvements including all street- related issues on CSAH 16. - Traffic signal systems at new CSAH 16/17' Avenue, existing CSAH 16/Valley Green Corporate Center, and revised signal systems at TH 169 ramps. - Trunk storm sewer adjacent to CSAH 83. - Storm sewer oversizing to the mine and Valley Green Corporate Center. - Trunk sanitary sewer adjacent to CSAH 83. - Watermain on CSAH 83 and CSAH 16. Final Design This phase will include the development of bidding documents as necessary to facilitate construction, as well as receive the necessary agency approvals. Preparation of these documents includes, but is not limited to, the following tasks. Preparation of cross- sections at 50 -foot intervals. 50 -scale plan and profile sheets for street construction, and roadway storm sewer construction. Erosion control/landscaping. G IWINDOWSITEMPEUTA.DOC 1 1 ` CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 RECONSTRUCTION City of Shakopee, NIN WSB Project No. 1281-00 Construction staging and traffic control. Traffic signal plans. - Trunk storm sewer plans. Trunk sanitary sewer plans. Watermain plans. - Specification. WSB will utilize the standard City of Shakopee specification and details. Project - specific items will be addressed in a special provision section, as well as a supplementary general condition section. $ Permits All necessary permits will be acquired as a part of the construction plan preparation. The cost of the permits would be paid by the City of Shakopee. $ Project Bidding Upon approval of the bidding documents by the City, WSB will distribute the necessary number of plan sets to the City for distribution. WSB will bill the City for the expenses of the plan printing. If requested, WSB will sell the plan sets to prospective bidders and will not refund that deposit to the unsuccessful bidders. In this case, the City would not be billed for the plan printing. $ Construction Management /Observation This will be addressed at the time the project is awarded. $ Record Drawings These will be completed on a cost - reimbursable basis upon completion of the project. 2 C.IWINDOWSITEMPEXFIA.DOC VV Resolution No. 5474 adopted on February 20, 2001, fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of County State Aid Highway 83, from 12"' Avenue to 1870 Feet South of the Existing Intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 Feet West of County State Aid Highway 83 to 1500 Feet East of County State Aid Highway 83 by installation of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street reconstruction, turn lanes, concrete median, concrete curb & gutter, traffic control signals, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail and any appurtenant work; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the 20th day of March, 2001, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE 1 ; CITY OF SHAKOPEE, NIINNESOTA: 1. That the improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and is ordered as hereinafter described, contingent upon Mn/D OT approval of the recommended design alternative in the feasibility report: Improvement of County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to 1870 Feet South of the Existing Intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 Feet West of County State Aid Highway 83 to 1500 Feet East of County State Aid Highway 83 by installation of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street reconstruction, turn lanes, concrete median, concrete curb & gutter, traffic control signals, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail and any appurtenant work. 2. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvements. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 2001 -4 Public Improvement Program. 4. The City Council shall let the contract for all or part of the improvements as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 429.041, no later than three years from the date of adoption of this resolution. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee I City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans for C.R. 83 /C.R. 16 Improvement Project, Resolution No. 5526 DATE: May 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION: This memo is a supplement to the previous memo on Item No. 15.D.1 for the consideration of Resolution No. 5526, a resolution ordering plans and specifications for C.R.83 /C.R. 16 improvements, Project No. 2001 -4. BACKGROUND: City staff did meet with Mn/DOT representatives and Scott County Highway representatives on April 30, 2001 to discuss in detail the proposed C.R. 83 and C.R. 16 improvement project. At this meeting, Mn/DOT was going to complete its analysis of the traffic information provided by WSB & Associates for the traffic counts for the A.M. and P.M. peaks as requested by Mr/DOT. On May 1, 2001, the traffic engineers from Mn/DOT had completed their review. Per the Area Manager, Leslie Vermillion of Mn/DOT, they have the following comments: • The concept design for the reconstruction of C.R. 83 and the realignment of C.R. 16 does meet Mn/DOT approval. • There are technical changes that will be needed in order to accommodate left turn movements on various intersections that can be made during the design and for the final approval for the plans by Mn/DOT. • Mn/DOT also requests that the mitigation plan requirement for maintaining the level of service on intersections on C.R. 83 at a level of service be incorporated in the plat approval process so that it can be enforceable. With the condition of making the AUAR mitigation plan for traffic a part of the plat approval process and documents, Mn/DOT would approve this design concept and allow the project to move forward. This information is being presented so that the Council will know the status on the approval process with Mn/DOT. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL /pmp SUPPLEMENT O O CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Michael Hullander, Public Works Supervisor SUBJECT: Purchase of Single Axle Dump Truck DATE: May 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION: The Public Works Department has identified a need to replace retired 1989 Plow Truck # 109 and retired 1984 stake body truck # 111. The request is in the 2001 Capital Equipment List under the Park Maintenance Division. .� The fast pace of growth in the City has required the Public Works Department to use retired vehicles in order to keep up with reasonable service levels in snow removal operations. Although these trucks are needed for snow removal operations we do not feel it is cost effective to not fully utilize these trucks year round. Our staff has been researching ways to better use some of our fleet and believe purchasing a truck with a hydraulic hook system will give us this flexibility. Some of the options include a contractors box, flatbed, chipperbox, leaf collection system and sanitary sewer vacuum. With this system the street, park, sanitary and storm sewer divisions can use the truck. The Public Works Department is requesting to use the State Bid for the purchase of a cab and chassis from Boyer Trucks, Inc. for the purchase price of $44,824.00. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the purchase of a cab and chassis from Boyer Trucks, Inc. for the purchase price of $44,824.00 with payment to come from the Internal Service Equipment Fund. 2. Do not authorize purchase at this time. 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Move to authorize the purchase of a cab and chassis from Boyer Trucks, Inc. for the purchase price of $44,824.00 with payment to come from the Internal Service Equipment Fund. V,�� , Michael Hullander Public Works Supervisor CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Promotion Appointment of Scott Smith To Project Engineer DATE: May 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Staff is recommending that Scott Smith be promoted from Engineering Tech. IV to Project Engineer, which is a new position for Council consideration. BACKGROUND: The Engineering Department has different position levels for Engineers and Engineering Technicians. Scott Smith was hired on January 19, 1998 as an Engineering Tech. IV, which is the highest technician level with the City. Mr. Smith is a Graduate Engineer and has recently passed his professional license. Mr. Smith has been involved in preparing plans and specifications for City improvement projects, coordinating the City's Pavement Management Program, review and approval of City building permits for the Engineering Department, training other technicians on the City's Cadd system and other Engineering programs and other duties as necessary in the Engineering Department. Staff is recommending this promotion due to Mr. Smith's achievement of becoming a professional engineer and the City's need for a higher level of responsibilies in assisting the Public Works Director and the Assistant City Engineer. Staff has researched several other Cities and is finding that the creation of a Project Engineer or Staff Engineer below Assistant City Engineer is becoming the norm in the Metropolitan area. A Project Engineer position will have expanded duties that are necessary in stormwater management, trunk sanitary sewer report and studies, plan review of private developments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, extensive training of technicians and design experience in preparing City improvement plans. Attached to this memo is the job description for Project Engineer and the Council will be asked to approve this job description and promote Scott Smith to this position with a salary at $48,392.00, which is Step 5 of the 2001 Non -Union Pay Plan. The City's personnel policy allows a department head to promote an employee by a different method than the initial hire. Also, the Personnel Policy requires a 6 -month probationary period for any promotional position. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a motion approving the job description of Project Engineer. 2. Move to appoint Scott Smith to the newly created Project Engineer position at a salary of $48,392.00, which is Step 5 of the 2001 Non -Union Pay Plan. 3. Table action pending further information from staff. 4. Approve a resolution amending the 2001 Non -Union Pay Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 and No. 2. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Approve a motion approving the job description of Project Engineer. 2. Move to appoint Scott Smith to the newly created Project Engineer position at a salary of $48,392.00, which is Step 5 of the 2001 Non -Union Pay Plan. 3. Offer Resolution No. 5527, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 5455, which Adopted the 2001 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non -Union Employees of the City of Shakopee and move its adoption. 4"t, 4 Bruce Loney to,, Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5527 RESOLUTION NO. 5527 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION O 5455 WHICH ADOPTED THE 2001 PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE OFFICERS AND NON-UNION EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS, on November 21, 2000, the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, adopted Resolution No. 5455, approving the 2001 Pay Schedule for the officers and non -union employees of the City of Shakopee; and WIffiREAS, certain conditions and circumstances have changed within the engineering department, therefore it is necessary to amend the pay plan by adding the Project Engineer classification to Grade I of the 2001 Pay Plan. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the attached schedule of the 2001 Pay Plan is hereby amended to include the classification of Project Engineer, Grade I. Adopted in _ day of session of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE 2001 Pay Plan 5/1/01 Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Market Title :�ityAdministrator $71,141 $73,682 $76,222 $78,763 $73,983 $81,303 $76,370 $83,844 $78,756 $86,384 $81,142 $88,925 $83,529 Unused $66,824 $62,506 $69,210 $64,738 $71,597 $66,971 $69,203 $71,435 $73,667 $75,899 $78,132 Police Chief $62,506 $64,738 $66,971 $69,203 $71,435 $73,667 $75,899 $78,132 PW Dir/Eng. Com. Dev. Dr. $58,698 $60,794 $62,890 $64,986 $67,082 $67,082 $69,179 $69,179 $71,275 $71,275 $73,371 $73,371 Finance Director $58,698 $54,888 $60,794 $56,848 $62,890 $58,808 $64,986 $60,769 $62,729 $64,689 $66,649 $68,609 Natural Resources Director City Engineer (not used) $51,562 $53,403 $55,244 $57,086 $58,927 $60,768 $60,768 $62,610 $62,610 $64,451 $64,451 $66,346 Deputy Chief $51,562 $51,562 $53,403 $53,403 $55,244 $55,244 $57,086 $57,086 $58,927 $58,927 $60,768 $62,610 $64,451 Facility & Recreation Dir $48,234 $49,957 $51,679 $53,402 $55,124 $56,847 $58,570 $60,292 Assistant City Eng $45,289 $46,907 $48,524 $50,141 $51,759 $53,376 $54,993 $56,611 EDA Coordinator Assistant Finance Director $45,289 $46,907 $48,524 $50,141 $51,759 $53,376 $49,904 $54,993 $51,416 $56,611 $52,929 PW Supervisor $42,343 $42,343 $43,856 $43,856 $45,368 $45,368 $46,880 $46,880 $48,392 $48,392 $49,904 $51,416 $52,929 Project Engineer $42,343 $43,856 $45,368 $46,880 $48,392 $49,904 $51,416 $52,929 Project Coordinator $42,343 $43,856 $45,368 $46,880 $48,392 $49,904 $51,416 $52,929 Building Official $42,343 $43,856 $45,368 $46,880 $48,392 $49,904 $51,416 $52,929 Plannerll City Clerk $42,343 $43,856 $45,368 $46,880 $44,012 $48,392 $45,431 $49,904 $46,851 $51,416 $48,271 $52,929 $49,690 Bldg Inspector $39,753 $39,753 $41,172 $41,172 $42,592 $42,592 $44,012 $45,431 $46,851 $48,271 $49,690 Fire Inspector Eng Tech IV $39,753 $41,172 $42,592 $44,012 $45,431 $42,472 $46,851 $43,799 $48,271 $45,126 $49,690 $46,453 $47,819 Recreation Supervisor $37,163 $37,163 $38,490 $38,490 $39,817 $39,817 $41,144 $41,144 $42,472 $43,799 $45,126 $46,453 Payroll Benefits Coord $37,163 $38,490 $39,817 $41,144 $42,472 $43,799 $45,126 $46,453 Planner $37,163 $38,490 $39,817 $41,144 $42,472 $43,799 $45,126 $46,453 Eng Tech III Management Assistant $34,852 $36,097 $37,342 $38,586 $39,831 $37,189 $41,076 1 $38,352 $42,320 1 $39,514 $43,565 $40,676 Executive Secretary $32,541 $30,560 $33,703 $31,651 $34,865 $32,743 $36,027 $33,834 $34,926 $36,017 4i37,108 $38,200 Eng Tech II Ice Arena Maint. Operator $30,560 $31,651 $32,743 $33,834 $34,926 $34,926 $36,017 $36,017 $37,108 $37,108 $38,200 $38,200 Secretary $30,560 $28,579 $31,651 $29,600 $32,743 $30,620 $33,834 $31,641 $32,662 $33,682 $34,703 $35,723 Accounting Clerk Police Records Tech $28,579 $29,600 $30,620 $31,641 $32,662 $32,662 $33,682 $33,682 $34,703 $34,703 $35,723 $35,723 Clerk Typist II $28,579 $26,802 $29,600 $27,759 $30,620 $28,716 $31,641 $29,673 $30,630 $31,587 $32,545 $33,502 Office Service Wkr Community Sery Officer $25,024 $25,918 $26,812 $27,705 $28,599 $29,493 $29,493 $30,386 $30,386 $31,280 $31,280 Customer Sery Rep $25,024 $25,024 $25,918 $25,918 $26,812 $26,812 $27,705 $27,705 $28,599 $28,599 $29,493 $30,386 $31,280 Facility Maint Wkr Bldg Maintenance Wkr $25,024 $25,918 $26,812 $27,705 $28,599 $29,493 $27,289 $30,386 $28,116 $31,280 $28,943 „ ----- :�. $23.155 $23,982 $24,808 $25,635 $26,462 5/1/01 Job Description Job Title: PROJECT ENGINEER Employee Name: Division: Engineering Department: Engineering Location: City Hall Shift: Reports To: Public Works Director /City Engineer FLSA Status: Non Exempt Prepared By: Bruce A. Loney Prepared Date: 05/01/2001 Approved By: Starting Salary: Pay Grade: I Salary Level: SUAENLARY To provide assistance and support to the Engineering Department and the public in providing project management and plan review of public and private improvement projects, performing engineering calculations, designing and creating project plans, and other studies as assigned. ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES include the following. Other duties may be assigned. Performs project management duties for public improvement projects such as: plan design, plan preparation, storm water calculations, sanitary sewer calculations, pavement design, preparation of specifications, and other necessary areas as directed by the Public Works Director. Assumes responsibility for specific city programs such as pavement management, MnDOT state aid program, neighborhood reconstructions , infiltration /inflow removal, and surface water management inconjuction with the City infrastructure plan(s). Provides direction for the use, development, and implementation of applicable computer programs and technology such as AutoCAD, Eagle Point, and the GIS coordinator for the engineering department. Provides input for the design of new programs that will improve the operations and the services of the Engineering division. Assists Assistant City Engineer and Public Works Director in the review of plats and specifications for construction of private development projects and site plans. Assists in the implementation of the Shakopee Surface Water Management Plan consistent with city program policies and recommendations; periodically provide input and recommend updates to the program. Maintain up -to -date computerized inventory of all lakes, ponds and corresponding drainage systems. Calibrate and utilize runoff/phosphorus loading models (NURP) for the purpose of predicting land use zoning and future development on water quality. Perform field verification of wet pond volumes to improve water quality model accuracy. Review of land use proposals and preliminary plats to determine impact to water resources; recommend appropriate measures for mitigation of nutrient impact in accordance with City policies and modeling techniques. Review City improvement project plans and recommend adequate measures to protect water quality, including the minimiz or other pollutants to lakes, wetlands or adjacent to other environmentally sensitive areas. This includes the review of storm drainage and pond sizing calculations. Analyzes reports, maps, drawings, blueprints, tests, and aerial photographs on soil composition, terrain, hydrological characteristics, and other topographical and geologic data to plan and design project. Preparation of feasibility reports for municipal projects, calculates cost and determines feasibility of project based on analysis of collected data. Maintain up -to -date knowledge of developments in the Water Quality and Storm Water Management field so the City programs can operate in a state -of -the -art fashion. Provide ideas for innovations and follow - through to implementation. Assist the Engineering Department in the preparation of short and long -term capital improvement programs /projects. Coordinates with the Building Official, Public Works Director, Assistant City Engineer, and the Community Development Director in reviewing new construction plans. Prepare written reports and recommendations to City departments, committees, commissions, and the City Council, as needed. Help address and resolve resident, developers, and property owners concerns. Review and prepare grading permits. Perform various duties as apparent or assigned to assist the Engineering Department operations. QUALIFICATIONS To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. EDUCATION and /or EXPERIENCE A Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering. Minimum of 4 (four) years of practical experience relating to municipal engineering. Familiarity with computerized water quality program, storm modeling techniques and other related engineering software. Project management experience and a demonstrated ability to work independently and successfully complete projects with little or no supervision. LANGUAGE SKILLS Ability to read, analyze, and interpret common scientific and technical journals, financial reports, and legal documents. Ability to respond to common inquiries or complaints from customers, regulatory agencies, or members of the business community. Ability to communicate effectively with the public, both written and verbal. MATHEMATICAL SKILLS Ability to work with mathematical concepts, knowledge of algebra, geometry and trigonometry and knowledge of surveying and surveying. REASONING ABILITY Ability to define problems, collect data, establish facts, and draw valid conclusions. Ability to interpret an extensive variety of technical instructions in mathematical or diagram form and deal with several abstract and concrete variables. CERTIFICATES, LICENSES, REGISTRATIONS Must possess valid Minnesota Drivers License. Must be an Engineer -in- Training (EIT) with the knowledge, skill and ability to become a registered professional engineer within six (6) months of hire. OTHER SKILLS AND ABILITIES Have a thorough knowledge of municipal construction, including acceptable construction practice, construction equipment and contract administration. Have knowledge of Eagle Point, pavement management system, Geographic Information System (GIS), and CADD software, and the ability to prepare plans using AutoCAD. Have knowledge of surveying including an understanding of descriptions and surveying calculations and the skill to operate surveying instruments. The ability to use and/or operate standard drafting tools and surveying equipment such as: level, theodolite, and electronic distance measuring devices. Have the ability to work without minimal supervision. PHYSICAL DEMANDS The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to sit; use hands to finger, handle, or feel objects, tools, or controls; reach with hands and arms; and talk or hear. The employee frequently is required to stand and walk. The employee is occasionally required to climb or balance and stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 10 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus. WORK ENVIRONMENT here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing The work environment characteristics described the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations maybe made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee occasionally works near moving mechanical parts; in high, precarious places; in outside weather conditions; and with explosives and is occasionally exposed to wet and/or humid conditions, risk of electrical shock, and vibration. The noise level in the work environment is usually moderate. • � I I' • s F SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Appointment to Cable Communications Advisory Commission And Community Access Corporation DATE: April 23, 2001 INTRODUCTION• City Council is asked to adopt Resolution No. 5501, appointing Mr. Ken Scannell to the Cable Communications Advisory Commission and to the Community Access Corporation. BACKGROUND: On April 17, 2001, City Council appointed Mr. Scannell to the Cable Commission and to the Access Corporation and directed staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for future consideration. BACKGROUND: Mr. Scannell was appointed to both committees in January of 1992 and has served until the expiration of his most recent term, on February 28, 2001. He recently advised that he is interested in being reappointed. According to the current guidelines for boards and commissions, no one may serve more than three terms on a board or commission that meets monthly. The Cable Commission and the Access Corporation have met infrequently at varying intervals since their inception, until recently. They have only been meeting monthly for the last couple of years. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 5501, A Resolution Appointing Individuals to Various Boards and Commissions, and move its adoption. Al f; RESOLUTION NO. 5501 RESOLUTION APPOINTING INDIVIDUALS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the following appointments are hereby made: Ken Scannell is appointed to the Community Access Corporation Board of Directors for a three year term expiring February 28, 2004. 2. Ken Scannell is appointed to the Cable Communications Advisory Commission for a three year term expiring February 28, 2004. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this I s' day of May, 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk MY OF S l t Y,} V. Memorandum l ikld, t A f= 3 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Request to Use Council Chambers for Shakopee Public Utility Commission Meetings April 23, 2001 INTRODUCTION• Council is asked to consider the use of the Council Chambers as a meeting place for the Shakopee Public Utility Commission. BACKGROUND: The Shakopee Public Utility Commission (SPUC) will be losing its meeting room sometime in May and is looking for another site. SPUC is interested in using the Council Chambers at city hall. It meets regularly the 1 and 3 Mondays of the month beginning at 4:30 p.m. The Council Chambers is not regularly scheduled for Monday meetings. It is, however, infrequently used for City Council workshop meetings beginning at 5 p.m. City Council usually schedules workshop meetings on off meeting Tuesdays and only uses Monday when a Council member has a conflict. SPUC has not decided whether or not to cablecast its meetings. If it does, the Access Corporation will pay for the cost. (Sometime ago the Access Corporation adopted a policy that the cable franchise fees received would finance the cost of cablecasting meetings held in the Council Chambers, and not those originating from other remote locations.) SPUC will advise the City as to the exact time that it will begin using the Council Chambers. RECOMMENDED ACTION• Move to approve the use of the Council Chambers by the Shakopee Public Utility Commission on the 1 and 3 Mondays of the month. j f t + '�4 'y - 1 TO: Judy Cox, City Clerk c.c. Mark -McNeill, City Admin. R. Sweeney, Liaison FROM: Lou Van Hout, Lit il. Mgr. RE: Meeting Arrangements, Shakopee Public Utilities Commission DATE: 4/17/2001 Thank you for looking into the possibilities for the Utilities Commission to use the City Council chambers for their regular meetings. By mid -to -late May 2001, the conference room at the SPUC Building will be converted to office cubicles and will no longer be usable as a meeting space for regular Utilities Commission meetings. With the conference room at the SPUC building no longer avail-able, the Commission felt that using the Council chambers would be their best option for regular SPUC meetings. Preferred Meeting Dates: For many years, the 1st Monday of each month has been the Regular meeting of the Commission. In the past few years, they have met mid-month with increasing frequency, and for the past year or so have routinely scheduled a meeting on the 3rd Monday of the month. Staying with the 1st and 3rd Mondays would be the preference. The meeting of the 1st Monday of the month would continue to be designated as their Regular Meeting date. The meeting on the 3rd Monday would still be optional - but with the expectation that Lt would be held almost every month. Obviously there will be holidays and other events which will require adJustments in the schedule, and coordination will be needed to avoid time conflicts. Assuming everything does get arranged as anticipated, :Terry Fox will be the person from SPUC to coordinate the arrangements on a regular basis. Thank you for your assistance. Please let us know what we should do at this point to get things finalized. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Purchase Agreement — Southbridge Elementary School Site DATE: April 24, 2001 I � The Council is asked to enter into a purchase agreement with ISD 720 for the sale to the School District 11.421 acres of land in the southeast corner of the Southbridge development. This would be the site of an elementary school. BACKG Since 1999, the City has had a "handshake" agreement to sell to ISD 720 what had been anticipated to be 8.8 acres of land that had originally been provided to the City as park dedication/open space. These 8.8 acres of land would be combined with other land from the Shakopee Crossings development, to form a parcel large enough upon which to construct an elementary school. The formal sale of this land was contingent upon successful passage of a referendum by Shakopee voters to fund the construction of the school; that referendum received overwhelming support in February. The 8.8 acres is a reconfiguration of the original plat, and as such, consists of two City outlots. While it had been thought to be 8.8 acres, after a survey was performed and a legal description provided, the actual amount of land that is subject to a transfer at this time is 11.421 acres. The City will retain portions of the land for ponding easements north and south of the school site, and there will be an easement for a regional trail along the southerly boundary. In addition to the 11.421 acres being purchased from the City, the School District will also obtain 3.39 acres from an adjacent parcel owned by Shakopee Crossings, for a total parcel size of just under 15 acres. Attached is a map and legal description. In order to make the opening target date of September 4, 2002, the school needs to begin grading in May, and initial construction work will need to begin in August. That conflicts with the direction from the City Council at its April 17" meeting, when it was stated that no building permits may be issued in the Southbridge development before construction of the County Road 18 /Southbridge Parkway development is completed. The Council did indicate an exemption could be considered; the School District has indicated a need for that (see attached letter). It is requesting that Building Permits for the school building itself be granted as soon as possible, independent of the intersection reconstruction schedule. 1 I' The original 8.8 acres was the subject of an appraisal of a larger parcel of land, which identified a value at just under $38,000 per acre. However, in February 2000, the City Council approved a motion to sell the land for $30,000 per acre, which was a price in line with the value of other land that the School District had recently purchased. Therefore, the recommendation is that the $30,000 per acre be applied to all the land described in the purchase agreement at this time. The total amount of that purchase agreement is $342,630. The seller (City) is responsible for the assessments on this property. ' 1 I 1 1' • 1, , I recommend that the purchase agreement be executed, and that the Council authorize issuance of Building Permits for the school building and related improvements as soon as the normal application procedures are completed. 1 ' 1 ' h If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, do the following: 1. Authorize execution of the purchase agreement for the sale of 11.421 acres of land in the Southbridge development from the City, to ISD 720; and 2. Authorize issuance of Building Permits for the school building and appurtenances upon satisfactory completion of the application process. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM/j s SliAKOPEE Shakopee School Board Anne Tuttle, Chair Todd Anderson, Vice Chair ® Steve Schneider, Clerk April 26, 2001 Shakopee City Council Members 129 S. Holmes Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear City Council Members, Mary Romansky, Treasurer Kathy Busch, Director Jessica Geis, Director Andrew Unseth, Director Superintendent: Jon McBroom Director of Business Services: Robert N. Martin Human Resources Manager: Shaleen Roth On behalf of the Board of Education of the Shakopee School District, I am writing to request that you consider allowing the School District to secure a building permit for the new elementary building before the Southbridge Parkway /County Road 18 traffic light has been installed. As you know, we have been working for many months on this project and are on a rather tight time frame trying to have the elementary building, that the community passed in February, open for the 2002 -03 School Year. Because of that time line, we need to begin our construction late June or in early July, at the latest. We acknowledge the concern that the City has regarding the traffic pattern in the Southbridge addition, but feel the need to make this request to determine whether you can allow us to secure the building permit to begin the construction phase of our project. I am including a copy of our proposed construction schedule, and plan to be in attendance at your Council Meeting. I would also be happy to answer questions prior to the meeting, and can be reached at 496 -5005. Respectfully, i `AI A,- f Jon McBroom 505 South Holmes ® Shakopee, MN 55379 ALL SCHOOLS ACCREDITED BY THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION (952)496 -5000 ® fax: (952)445 -8446 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER TTY: (952)496 -5029 Shakopee Public Schools Independent District #720 March 26, 2001 5,%JSr)720\L)0137-PPLiZE-r%SGHEDA-EDWC mom ©0 ©000 ©00E11 MMMMMMM mom mom MMMMMMMM Samoa M w ® OM WWREMMMMMMMMMMOSMOS M MW MOMENEW ----- -- �ff Elementary MM MOM MMMMMMMMO MM WNW � =MMMM MM OEM MM MM MMMMM MM . ® ---MM =MM ........ ------ Pearson Elementary MEMOM11111110 MMI MMMMWWM Upgrades March 26, 2001 5,%JSr)720\L)0137-PPLiZE-r%SGHEDA-EDWC i a Vc� M C. S.7 - 1 -� ,o(o G s t � a Io 0 WOLO ARCHITECTS ANO ENGINE 5 WEST FIFTH STIR 0 0 o' Q L4 z CS 37s))�/� 1� 3� c{ 3,o (3Pg3) s 6 0 /i Lurnsc�� crmscivxe srzirura�vG �xc �"'^' �.��'��� � ` • - /i .. - .FLL(763JSK -7I2f - .. - - - tS (76JJSK -7 `� t i �Q wX. '� '"�' ..hr �. suBJEC'r: NEl^t SHAKOPEE ELEMENTARY SGHOOL J' 00' DATE: OOA4MISsIOI�t N0: �` ; °;;� REVISIONS REV. DATE PROPOSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PARCEL A CITY OUTLOT (LESS PONDS) Outlot A, SOUTHBRIDGE 4 ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota, except that part of said Outlot A lying northerly of a line described as commencing at the most easterly corner of said Outlot A; thence on an assumed bearing of South 29 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 358.44 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 56 degrees 34 minutes 42 seconds West a distance of 337.99 feet to a westerly line of said Outlot A and said line there terminating. Also except that part of said Outlot A lying westerly and southerly of a line described as commencing at the southwest corner of Outlot J, SOUTHBRIDGE 1 sT ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 44 minutes 46 seconds East, along the south line of said Outlot J, a distance of 2035.24 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 0 degrees 15 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 291.23 feet; thence on a bearing of West a distance of 207.80 feet to the most easterly corner of Lot 11, Block 3, said SOUTHBRIDGE 4-1 ADDITION and said line there terminating. PARCEL A = 364,962 square feet of 8.378 acres AND PARCEL B S.E. CORNER Outlot J, SOUTHBRIDGE 1 sT ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota, except that part of said Outlot J lying westerly of a line described as commencing at the southwest corner of said Outlot J; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 44 minutes 46 seconds East, along the south line of said Outlot J, a distance of 2035.24 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 0 degrees 15 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 78.17 feet to a northwesterly line of said Outlot J and said line there terminating. PARCEL B = 132,544 square feet of 3.043 acres THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of April 2001, by and between City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "Seller ") and Shakopee School District, _ ( "Buyer "). WITNESSETH: 1. Description of Land Sold Seller, in consideration of receipt of $1.00 and the covenants and agreements of Buyer hereinafter contained, hereby sells and agrees to convey unto the Buyer, its successors and assigns, by quit claim deed, upon the prompt and full performance by the Buyer of its part of this Agreement, the 11.421 acres of real property, including improvements and fixtures located thereon, in Scott County, Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property "). 2. Purchase Price Buyer, in consideration of the covenants and agreements of Seller, hereby agrees to pay to Seller as and for the purchase price of the Property the sum of Three Hundred Forty Two Thousand Six hundred Thirty and no /100 Dollars ($342,630.00) (which is the product of 11.421 acres times $30,000 per acre) (the "Purchase Price ") in cash or equivalent payable on the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined). 3. Closing Date The Closing Date of this transaction shall take place on the six month anniversary of the execution of this purchase agreement by both parties (or such earlier date as selected by Buyer upon 10 days written notice) provided. At closing, Seller shall deliver to Buyer a quit claim deed as provided in paragraph 4 hereof and any abstract of title or owner's duplicate certificate of title that Seller may have in its possession (but which Seller is not otherwise obligated to procure). Subject to paragraph 6 hereof, possession of the Property shall be delivered to Buyer on the Closing Date. 4. Deed It is agreed that the Quit Claim Deed executed and delivered by Seller to Buyer at the Closing Date (accompanied by all customary affidavits and certificates) shall be subject only to the following exceptions: (a) Building zoning and platting laws, ordinances and state and federal regulations; (b) Reservation of any minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota; (c) Utility and road easements of record that do not interfere materially with the use or development of the Property by Buyer as disclosed by visual inspection of the easement on the Survey; (d) The lien of current taxes not yet due and payable; (e) The lien of special assessments related to Buyer's development; BLW- 196153v1 SH155 -23 (f) Any lien, claim or encumbrance incurred or suffered by Buyer. Said Deed shall be accompanied by all required well disclosure. 5. Taxes and Special Assessments Seller shall pay all real estate taxes, interest and penalties, if any, and all installments of special assessments relating to the Property due and payable in the year prior to the year of Closing and the years prior thereto. Provided that the transaction contemplated by this purchase agreement shall close, Buyer agrees to pay taxes due and payable in the year after the year of Closing and all taxes due and payable thereafter. Seller and Buyer shall prorate all taxes due in the year of Closing as of the Closing Date. Seller shall pay all levied or pending special assessments, except those special assessments related to Buyer's development, which assessments shall be the responsibility of Buyer. 6. Preliminary Development Buyer shall have the right, prior to the Closing Date, to enter upon the Property for the purpose of taking soil tests and borings, making surveys and maps and performing other preliminary investigative work, and for the purpose of grading, provided, however, that Buyer shall indemnify and hold harmless Seller from any mechanic's liens or claims arising out of such preliminary development work by Buyer. Prior to the Closing Date, Buyer shall not construct or cause the construction of any improvements on the Properly. 7. Examination of Title. Seller shall order within five (5) business days from the date hereof for delivery to Buyer a commitment for an owner's policy of title insurance (ALTA Form, Revised 10- 17 -92) for the Property (the "Commitment ") with the amount of coverage equal to the Purchase Price, showing marketable title vested in Seller. The Commitment shall include a copy of each instrument listed as an exception to title or referred to therein, and the usual searches for bankruptcies, judgment liens, tax liens, and special assessments showing all levied, pending, and deferred special assessments and all deferred real estate taxes. Buyer shall be allowed twenty (20) days after the receipt of the Commitment for examination of the title and the making of any objections thereto, said objections to be made in writing or deemed to have been waived. If any objections to title are made, Seller shall be allowed forty -five (45) days in which to cure or obtain affirmative title insurance coverage over any such objections. Pending correction of title, the Closing Date shall be extended, if necessary, to the date ten (10) days after the earlier of: (i) the end of said forty -five (45) day period, (ii) the date of removal of the specified objections from the Commitment as evidenced by delivery to Buyer of any endorsement to the Commitment, (iii) the date of delivery to Seller of a written waiver of the specified objections by Buyer, or (iv) the date which is twelve (12) months from the date of this purchase agreement. 8. Survey Buyer has procured, at its sole expense, an ALTA survey of the Property prepared by a registered land surveyor (the "Survey ") which indicates the number of gross acres in the Property. Buyer shall make any objections to title arising from the Survey on or before the date which is twenty (20) day's after Buyer's receipt of the Commitment, said objections to be made in writing or deemed to have been waived. If any objections to title are made, Seller shall be allowed forty -five (45) days in which to cure or obtain affirmative title insurance coverage over any such objections. Pending correction of title, the Closing Date shall be extended, if necessary, to the date ten (10) days after the earlier of (i) the end of said forty -five (45) day period, (ii) the date of removal of the specified objections from the Survey as evidenced by delivery to Buyer of any BLW- 196153v1 SH155 -23 revision to the Survey or endorsement to the Commitment insuring over such objection, (iii) the date of delivery to Seller of a written waiver of the specified objections by Buyer, or (iv) the date which is twelve (12) months from the date of this purchase agreement. 9. Environmental Review (a) Within five (5) days from the date hereof, Seller shall provide to Buyer copies of any environmental assessment reports, engineering reports or other written information or documentation concerning the physical condition of the Property to the extent such documents are reasonably available to Seller. Seller hereby grants to Buyer and its officers, employees, agents, contractors and representatives (collectively, "Buyer's Representatives ") the right to test and inspect the Properly as Buyer reasonably deems necessary, which inspection may be commenced after the date hereof and shall be completed by the later of (i) 45 days after the date hereof or (ii) 40 days after the delivery of all the foregoing documents to Buyer ( "Inspection Period "). (b) Buyer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Seller harmless from and against any claim, loss, damage or expense, including reasonable attorneys fees, to the extent the same are caused by Buyer or Buyer Representatives while inspecting or testing the Property. Buyer shall not be liable for conditions discovered, but not caused by Buyer ( "Discovered Condition "). Buyer shall give Seller written notice of any Hazardous Substance (as hereafter defined) discovered on the Property within five (5) business days after discovery. If Buyer determines that a Phase II environmental investigation on the Property is required, Buyer shall, within said five (5) day period notify Seller of that requirement, and the Inspection Period and the Closing Date shall be extended until the date ten- (10) days after the date of delivery of the Phase II report to Buyer (but in no event later than twelve months from the date of this purchase agreement). (c) If Buyer objects to the condition of the Property, Buyer's sole recourse shall be to terminate this purchase agreement upon written notice to Seller, delivered within on or prior to expiration of the Inspection Period. If the Inspection Period expires without receipt by Seller of notice of Buyer's intention to terminate this Agreement, Buyer shall have waived its right to terminate this Agreement based inspection of the Property of the Property and this Agreement shall be considered in full force and effect. (d) If this Agreement is terminated and Buyer does not complete the purchase of the Property, then Buyer agrees to provide Seller with copies of all test results pertaining to the Property within five (5) days after the termination of the Purchase Agreement. 10. No Impairment Seller and Buyer warrant to each other that during the term of this Agreement they shall take no action to cause the status of title to the Property to change in any way that impairs the rights of the other. 11. Representations and Warranties by Seller Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that: (a) There is no action, litigation, investigation, condemnation or proceeding of any kind pending against Seller or the Property which could adversely affect the Property, any portion thereof or title thereto. Seller shall give Buyer prompt written notice if any BLW- 196153vl SH155 -23 such action, litigation, condemnation or proceeding is threatened or commenced prior to the Closing Date. (b) To the actual knowledge of Seller: (a) no toxic or hazardous substances or wastes, pollutants or contaminants (including, without limitation, asbestos, urea formaldehyde, the group of organic compounds known as polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum products including gasoline, fuel oil, crude oil and various constituents of such products, and any hazardous substance as defined in any state, local or federal law, regulation, rule, policy or order relating to the protection of the environment) (collectively, "Hazardous Substance ") have been generated, treated, stored, transferred from, released or disposed of, or otherwise placed, deposited in or located on the Property, nor has any activity been undertaken on the Property that would cause or contribute to the Property becoming a treatment, storage or disposal facility within the meaning of, or otherwise bring the Property within the ambit of, any state, local or federal law, regulation, rule, policy or order relating to the protection of the environment; (b) there has been no discharge, release or threatened release of Hazardous Substances from the Property; (c) there are no Hazardous Substances or conditions in or on the Property that may support a claim or cause of action under any state, local or federal law, regulation, rule, policy or order relating to the protection of the environment; and (d) the Property is not now, and never has been, listed on any list of sites contaminated with Hazardous Substances, nor used as landfill, dump, disposal or storage site for Hazardous Substances. (c) If there is a well located on the Property, Seller will provide at Closing a well disclosure. There are no underground storage tanks located on the Property. There is no septic system located on the Property unless Seller has disclosed the same to Buyer. (d) To the best of Seller's knowledge, there has been no dumping or deposit of construction or other debris on the Property. (e) To the actual knowledge of Seller, except as disclosed in the special assessment search provided by Title Company, or as otherwise disclosed to Buyer by Seller in writing, Seller has received no written notice from any governmental body of actual or threatened special assessments or reassessments of the Property. (f) There are no other contracts for the sale of the Property, nor are there any rights of first refusal or options to purchase the Property or any other agreements or rights of others affecting the Property, except for easements and covenants of record. (g) Seller has delivered to Buyer copies of all environmental notices, reports and studies relating to the Property which are in the possession of Seller. (h) Except as disclosed to Buyer by Seller in writing, to the actual knowledge of Seller, Seller has received no permits of any kind from any governmental body with respect to the Property, and has no actual knowledge of any such permits. Seller hereby agrees that each of the foregoing representations and warranties shall survive closing hereunder and that the breach of any thereof shall constitute a default, whether said breach occurs prior to or after Closing, entitling Buyer to exercise any remedy provided to Buyer in this purchase agreement in the event of a default by Seller. In addition, if any of the foregoing warranties or BLW- 196153v1 SH155 -23 representations shall be breached or shall be untrue, Seller shall indemnify and hold Buyer from any damages or liabilities relating thereto. 12. Default If either parry hereto, through no fault of the other parry, defaults in its obligations hereunder in any manner, the nondefaulting parry may, by notice upon the defaulting party, (i) terminate this purchase agreement or (ii) avail itself of an action for specific performance. Nothing herein shall relieve Buyer of any obligation to indemnify or hold Seller harmless as stated herein. 13. Notices. Any notice, request, demand, payment, election or other communication permitted or required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given when delivered personally or when deposited in the United States mails, Certified Mail, postage prepaid, or delivered to a reputable overnight courier addressed to the party for whom it is intended at the address specified below or at such other address as either party shall notify the other; or transmitted by facsimile copy to the telephone number specified below followed by mailed notice; and shall be deemed received by the party to whom it is directed on the date delivered if delivered personally, on the date three days after mailing if mailed, on the date one day after the date sent by overnight courier, or on the date the facsimile copy is received. Buyer: Shakopee School District Seller: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee MN 55379 Attn: City Administrator Facsimile Phone: (612) 445 -6718 14. Broker Seller and Buyer represent and warrant to each other that they have not engaged any real estate broker in connection with Seller's sale of the Property. Each party shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other party from any claims of any broker claiming through such party. 15. Seller's Costs. Seller shall pay the following costs: (a) The title search costs for the Commitment. (b) State Deed Tax. (c) Seller's attorney's fees. (d) The cost of recording satisfactions or releases of any mortgages that are the obligations of Seller, and the cost of any residue Certificate of Title. (e) One -half of the closing fee charged by the Title Company. BLW- 196153vl SH155 -23 16. Buyer's Costs Buyer shall pay the following closing costs: (a) The costs of any title insurance policy, except for the title search costs to be paid by Seller. (b) Buyer's attorney's fees. (c ) The filing fees to record the Deed. (d) One -half of the closing fee charged by the Title Company 17. Miscellaneous The terms, covenants, indemnities and conditions of this purchase agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto, and shall survive the Closing Date. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. Buyer shall have the right to assign its rights under this purchase agreement. 18. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to the other party, it being understood that all parties need not sign the same counterpart. For purposes hereof, delivery shall be deemed effective upon exchange of signed copies of this Agreement by facsimile, provided that originally signed counterparts of this Agreement are promptly delivered to the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF SHAKOPEE By: By: Its: Its:_ By: Its: BLW- 196153v1 SH155 -23 EXHIBIT A TO PUXCHASE AGREENI PARCEL A — to be inserted and PARCEL B — to be inserted MA4271 \981469 \0ption.doc / 5 -, F (/. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Credit Card Acceptance DATE: April 25, 2001 Introduction Council authorization is requested to accept credit cards as payment. Background Recreation has been asking about accepting credit cards for payment of registrations, etc. This is due to requests from participants. The State Legislature has authorized cities to use and accept credit cards but adding a service fee for the use for payment of taxes. Council controls the fees for recreational programs and therefore could change fees or accept reduced fees (after credit card fee). Recreation has requested the use of credit cards and the cost of the card usage would come out of the Recreation Fund. From the 2001 budget, there appears that there is about $355,000 that would be eligible for payment by cards. Two percent of $355,000 is about $7,000. Ice time would not be eligible for payment by cards. The set up cost for the use of cards is from $400 to $1,100 depending on which hardware is selected, monthly cost is about $20 and cost per transaction is about 2.2 %. These costs are for using a credit card program through Marquette Bank. Recommendation Electronic processing and use of credit cards continues to increase. This is fairly new territory for cities in Minnesota but the City will be facing this issue sooner or later. Recommendation is to authorize the acceptance of payment by credit /debit cards for recreational programs. Other areas for the use of credit cards for payment can be explored later after a "trial period" in the Recreation Department. Action Move to authorize staff to proceed with accepting credit cards for the payment of recreational fees. re gg Voxland Finance Director C: \gregg \memo\ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Fire Relief Pension DATE: April 26, 2001 Introduction At the March 27 meeting, Council requested more information about the impact of increasing the Fire Relief pension benefit level. Background In recent years, the City contribution to the Fire Relief Association and the benefit levels have been: Year Benefit Level Contribution 1997 2,688.00 96/97 levy $39,854.00 1998 3,062.00 +14% 97/98 levy 12,224.00 - 69% 1999 3,347.00 + 9% 98/99 levy 32,973.00 +163% 2000 3,847.00 +15% 99/00 levy 65,211.00 + 98% 2001 Proposed 4,400.00 +14% 00 /01 levy 65,210.00 0% BUDGET 2002 @ 5,000.00 +14% 01/02 levy 140,084.00 +115% 2002 @ 5,750.00 +15% 268,553.00 + 92% 2002 @ 6,600.00 +15% 349,440.00 + 30% 2002 @ 7,500.00 +14% 435,086.00 + 25% Note: due to limitations in the software supplied by the state, the above projections are based on the 2001 employees - i.e. no retirements, no additions, no increase in years of service, no change in city contribution or state aid and no interest income /investment appreciation or depreciation. Staff will try to have more information on the table Tuesday. Attached is a list of firefighters and their years of service are shown in column 8. In 2002 there are eleven firefighters eligible for full retirement. In 2003 there would be four more eligible for full retirement. Assets in the pension fund at 12/31/00 were $1,640,000. If the eleven senior firefighters were to retire at a benefit level of $4,400, the payout would be about $1,162,000. If interest earning were calculated at 5%, the income would be about $82,000 for 2001 (assuming market stability). This would reduce the city contribution. When setting a benefit level, the city contribution is what ever it takes to fund the plan (defined benefit plan). The only way to stabilize the contribution is to in effect, turn the plan into a defined contribution plan where the city contribution is set and the benefit is whatever the funding will support. Action Discuss and give direction on how to proceed with the pension benefit level. Gregg Voxland Finance Director G \gregg \memo\ d SC -01 SCHEDULES I&II • ' LUMP SUM PENSIO REP ORTING • 200 Firefighters' Relief Association: SHAKOPEE County of : Fai�* 1 r 10 !M Estimation of relief association Special Fund pension liabilities for all members based on years of active service with the fire department, with the regular per - year -of- service pension set at $ 4,400 1. 1 ......::.: Ries Frank 2 ` t iris 02 -01-45 3 Age Ce on 12/31 12J31 2001 56 4 Depf tJate of t3etiC lY . Mirk# dd 01 -01-68 5 Lem of t Yks IUlbs 0 ; 0 6 7 2001 To End of This Year ears of Accrued Service Liability 34 149,600 8 9 2002 To End of Next Year Accrued Years of A Service Liability 35 154,000 2. Ries Joe 02 -02-45 56 07 -01 -72 30 132,000 31 136,400 3. Latzke Robert 02 -03-45 56 07 -01 -77 25 110,000 26 114,400 4. Myers Mark 024)4 -45 56 07 -01 -79 23 101,200 24 105,600 5. Link Terry 02 -05-45 56 02 -01-80 22 96,800 23 101 6. Siedow Ed 02 -06-45 56 02 -01-81 21 1 92,400 22 96,800 7. Athmann Mary 02 -07-45 56 03-01 -81 21 92,4001 22 96,800 8. Berg Ken 02 -08-45 56 01 -01-82 20 88,000 21 92,400 9. Judd Dave 02 -09-45 56 08-01 -82 19 81,136 20 88,000 10. Weckman Rand 02 -10-45 56 09-01 -82 19 81,136 20 88,000 11. Benz, Brian 02 -11-45 56 07 -01-83 19 1 81,136 20 88,000 12. Glynn Marty 02 -12-45 56 09 -01-83 18 74,712 19 81,136 13. Baden Lino 02 -13-45 56 03-01 -84 18 74,712 19 81 14. Pass Ken 02 -14-45 56 04-01 -84 I 18 74,712 - 19 81,136 15. Geis AI 02 -15-45 56 10-01 -81 2- 18 1 74,712 19 81,136 16. Pitschneider Tom 02 -16-45 56 08-01 -85 16 62,832 17 68,640 17. Theis Val 02 -17-45 56 12 -01-85 16 62,832 17 68,640 18. Coleman Rick 02 -18-45 56 04 -01-87 15 57,376 16 62,832 19. Stang Terry 02 -19-45 56 04-01 -87 15 57,376 16 62,832 20. Theis Scott 02 -20-45 56 08-01 -88 13 47,080 14 52,096 21. Pauly Dan 02 -21-45 56 11 -01-89 12 42,328 13 47,080 22. Leadstrom Dan 02 -22-45 56 11 -01-89 12 42,328 13 47,080 23. Schwaesdall Ed 02 -23.45 56 07 -01 -93 9 29,304 10 33,440 24. La er John 02 -24-45 56 05-01 -94 8 25,344 9 29,304 25. Klien Dave 02 -25-45 56 05-01 -94 8 25,344 9 29,304 Subtofai rof ll� �� : �,�, i I_,,, ,; ,, ,: �il��iVl����IV�llullllllllllllllllll! IIIIVVIiIIiIIIhiII IIIIIIIIIIIIV�IIIIIIIIII�II�. IIILIillulll�l�llllll��llll�l�l I !I!I!ILIIII!Iii, 11 I Lil 1111111116 I ; .III,IIIIIII!hlllll!I,...L.. ; 'I fill! IIIh 1 856,800 ! i l �LIII!I,IIIIII!IIIIL!I,.::. I(Il�lill!II! 1,987,392 � W, -7 - Fractional Years of service must be calculated to nearest full year. 19 z Do not enter data here for any person to receive their pension during this year. Enter instead on Schedule II, Seca 1, Line g. / � y ?' ✓ A copy of these schedules must be presented to the City Council before August 1 each year. , 2� , rm SC -01 \ Page 2a SCH EDULE I- ADDITIONAL ACTIVE MEMBERS 1 ----------------------- gme 1 :0, 26 • Pautv, Denny 2 : 01 -12-45 3---- 4 Age Fire dept 31 200 1 56 ; 07 -01 -89 5 Leaves of lff'1s'' <` ��1 >2%3i . sService � : 6 7 --- - -- 2001 To End of This Year Accxu ed Years of 'abil' U �Y 13 47,080 8 ----- -- - - -- 2002 To End of Next Year Yea n3 Of ACCfU ed Service Liab il' �Y 14 52,096 27• Menke Steve 01 -13-45 56 ; 05 -01 -94 8 25,344 9 1 29,304 28. Ries raf Bob 01 -14-45 56 ; 07 -01 -93 9 29,304 10 33,440 29. Laxen Paul 01 -15-45 56 ; 05 -01 -96 6 18,040 7 21,648 30. Sinnen Jon 01 -16-45 56 ; 01 -01 -97 5 14,696 6 18,040 31. Paulson Jim 01 - 17 - 45 56 01 - 01 - 97 5 14,696 6 18,040 32. Hoffman Duane 01 -18-45 56 1 11 -01 -97 4 11,440 5 1 14,696 33- Wandersee Mark 01 -19-45 56 ; 11 -01 -97 4 11,440 5 14,696 34. Johnson AI 01 -20-45 56 ; 11 -01 -97 4 11,440 5 14,696 35. Gieseke Bob 01 -21-45 56 f 12 -01 -97 4 11,440 5 14,696 36 . Otteson Mike 01 -22-45 56 °, 03 -01 -99 3 8,360 4 11,440 37. Tessmer Paul 01 -23 -45 56 ; 03 -01 -99 3 8,360 4 11,440 38 Theisen Jacob 01 -24-45 56 ; 10 -01 -99 2 5,456 3 8,360 39 - Nendick Thomas 01 -25-45 56 ; 10 -01 -99 2 5,456 3 8,360 40 - Bender Eric 01 - 26 - 45 56 ? 10 - 01 - 99 2 5,456 3 8,360 41. Asper Jason 01 -27-45 56 i 03 -01 -01 1 2,640 2 5,456 42. Fox, John 01 -28-45 56 °, 03 -02 -01 1 2,640 2 5,456 43 - Hechsel Tom 01 -29-45 56 03 -03 -01 1 2,640 2 5,456 Nelson Craig 01 -30-45 56 ; 03 -04 -01 1 2,640 2 5,456 45 • Yttreness Ryan 01 -31-45 56 ; 03 -05 -01 1 2,640 2 5,456 46. Snell Bob 02 -01-45 56 ; 12 -01 -84 17 68,640 18 74,712 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. ; 61. 62. 63. I I 64. 65. $ fill V� f4y���I�it��G,''1T�S1u 309,848 ,�.�6�� i'!!Ililllui4iiil'IilUi!IIVI!,r ..Ia.. , 381 304 S' CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Fire Relief Pension DATE: May 1, 2001 Introduction At the March 27 meeting, Council requested more information about the impact of increasing the Fire Relief pension benefit level. Background In recent years, the City contribution to the Fire Relief Association and the benefit levels have been: Year Benefit Level Contribution 1997 2,688.00 96/97 levy $39,854.00 1998 3,062.00 +14 97/98 levy 12,224.00 - 69% 1999 3,347.00 + 9 98/99 levy 32,973.00 +163% 2000 3,847.00 +15% 99/00 levy 65,211.00 + 98% 2001 Proposed 4,400.00 +14 00 /01 levy 65,210.00 0% 2002 @ 5,000.00 +14% 01/02 levy 140,084.00 +115% 2003 @ 5,750.00 +15% 02/03 154,912.00 + 92% 2004 @ 6,600.00 +15 03/04 169,340.00 + 30% 2005 @ 7,500.00 +14% 04/05 199,425.00 + 25% Note: The above projections are based on the 2001 employees - i.e. no retirements, no additions, no change in state aid or interest income /invescmenz apprec.iacion or depreciation. While we could not change the year on the state software, we changed the input to reflect subsequent years. The city contribution shown above is from the state software and we think it is reasonably close based on the assumptions. Attached to the previous memo was a list of firefighters and their years of service are shown in column 8. In 2002 there are eleven firefighters eligible for full retirement. In 2003 there would be four more eligible for full retirement. Assets in the pension fund at itj.�lluu were 4)l,o4u,uuu. iZ cne eleven senior zirezignzers were zo retire at a benefit level of $4,400, the payout would be about $1,162,000. If interest earnings were calculated at 5 %, the income would be about $82,000 for 2001 (assuming market stability). The calculations for 2001 used no interest income due to the state of the market and interest rates. For following years, $82,000 was used for interest income. This reduces the city contribution. When setting a benefit level, the city contribution is what ever it takes to fund the plan (defined benefit plan). The only way to stabilize the contribution from the city is to in effect, turn the plan into a defined contribution plan where the city contribution is set and the benefit level is whatever the funding will support. Action Discuss and give direction on how to proceed with the pension benefit level_ P Gregg Voxland Finance Director C: \greg4 \memo\ 0